AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Diest TKO wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

As many liberals are Christian as are Conservatives. So does that work both ways?

Not really. While both parties have politicians who are Christians, only one of them leverages fear as a political tool. One party crosses the line and blurs the separation of church and state.

Since the republican party has been overrun by the religious right, it has behaved in a manner which disrespects the authority of the United States and uses the excuse that they are answering to a higher authority.

This has caused several ethical inconsistencies from the party.
K
O

P.S. - I'm not saying that the Dems don't have their own issues or inconsistencies. Their inconsistencies usually derive from the fact that they represent several interests/groups which may or may not have the same agenda. It's hard for the dems to be a rigid as the republicans because the dems don't want to disenfranchise anybody. It's a plus and a minus; very novel and it's the way things should be, but you can't please everyone.

I agree that the extreme Religious Right has done itself no favors either in image or effectiveness in some of the tactics it has employed. Fortunately, even if the anti-religious Left has not opposed them, the mainstream religious did and does resist their objectionable tactics.

Its pretty much the same thing that most liberals do not condone spiking trees or throwing blood on women wearing fur or sabotaging oil drilling platforms or sending threatening packages or letters to people trying to demand passage of their agenda.

We all have our weirdos, fanatics, idiots, and inappropriate activists. I suppose it is the cross that we bear by attempting to be an open tent.

You do understand that there is every bit as much disagreement on various issues among conservatives as there is among liberals don't you?

Hmmm... I disagree.

You first told me there are Christians in both parties, and then you referred to the left as being anti-religious. Which is it? What day of the week is it?

You are correct that both parties have their extremists, but republicans elect theirs to office. I may not agree with PETA, or any other organization with identifies with the left, but that doesn't make me a bad democrat. I don't think the republican party can say the same thing about christianity. If Christianity is too general, take just one topic like abortion, and you can quickly become a bad republican.

In the words of the comedian David Cross:

"I don't believe that republicans are evil racist, sexist, homophobic, bigots. They just choose to be represented by them."

If within the republican right their is as much controversy as you claim, I think it would manifest itself in some more dramatic ways. On a positive note, I think that McCain was the best candidate that the republicans could push forward, he does in some ways represent the notion that the party has some perspective beyond it's member's own immediate interests.

T
K
O

No, the GOP doesn't elect its extremists. Just like the Democrats, it has had some run and none make it past the first few primary contests. The Democrats would elect their extremists to office if there were not conservatives (in both parties) to deny that. And that is what keeps the GOP from electing extremists from within its ranks too. Remember there are more registered Democrats than Republicans, so the GOP couldn't elect anybody dogcatcher without some Democratic consent. The way it usually works is that the one who appeals to the most people wins.

Foxfyre wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

As many liberals are Christian as are Conservatives. So does that work both ways?

Not really. While both parties have politicians who are Christians, only one of them leverages fear as a political tool. One party crosses the line and blurs the separation of church and state.

Since the republican party has been overrun by the religious right, it has behaved in a manner which disrespects the authority of the United States and uses the excuse that they are answering to a higher authority.

This has caused several ethical inconsistencies from the party.
K
O

P.S. - I'm not saying that the Dems don't have their own issues or inconsistencies. Their inconsistencies usually derive from the fact that they represent several interests/groups which may or may not have the same agenda. It's hard for the dems to be a rigid as the republicans because the dems don't want to disenfranchise anybody. It's a plus and a minus; very novel and it's the way things should be, but you can't please everyone.

I agree that the extreme Religious Right has done itself no favors either in image or effectiveness in some of the tactics it has employed. Fortunately, even if the anti-religious Left has not opposed them, the mainstream religious did and does resist their objectionable tactics.

Its pretty much the same thing that most liberals do not condone spiking trees or throwing blood on women wearing fur or sabotaging oil drilling platforms or sending threatening packages or letters to people trying to demand passage of their agenda.

We all have our weirdos, fanatics, idiots, and inappropriate activists. I suppose it is the cross that we bear by attempting to be an open tent.

You do understand that there is every bit as much disagreement on various issues among conservatives as there is among liberals don't you?

Hmmm... I disagree.

You first told me there are Christians in both parties, and then you referred to the left as being anti-religious. Which is it? What day of the week is it?

You are correct that both parties have their extremists, but republicans elect theirs to office. I may not agree with PETA, or any other organization with identifies with the left, but that doesn't make me a bad democrat. I don't think the republican party can say the same thing about christianity. If Christianity is too general, take just one topic like abortion, and you can quickly become a bad republican.

In the words of the comedian David Cross:

"I don't believe that republicans are evil racist, sexist, homophobic, bigots. They just choose to be represented by them."

If within the republican right their is as much controversy as you claim, I think it would manifest itself in some more dramatic ways. On a positive note, I think that McCain was the best candidate that the republicans could push forward, he does in some ways represent the notion that the party has some perspective beyond it's member's own immediate interests.

T
K
O

No, the GOP doesn't elect its extremists. Just like the Democrats, it has had some run and none make it past the first few primary contests. The Democrats would elect their extremists to office if there were not conservatives (in both parties) to deny that. And that is what keeps the GOP from electing extremists from within its ranks too. Remember there are more registered Democrats than Republicans, so the GOP couldn't elect anybody dogcatcher without some Democratic consent. The way it usually works is that the one who appeals to the most people wins.

Uh... Strom Thurman. He was a real mild fellow. Nothing extreme about him. The rest of your comment s about elections are irrelavant because the scope of this topic extends beyond just the presidency.

I will address the comment about registered democrats. Nothing in the political process is more important than the citizens voting. Only one thing makes me more mad than not registering to vote, and that is registering, and then not showing up. Democrats have a HORRIBLE record of this, and for what reason, I can't fathom.

T
K
O

The idea is that we should, as a society, ensure that people aren't starving (or left without education, or dying of curable diseases). This doesn't mean that some people can't earn more.

I believe that society has a responsibility to provide its citizens with a minimum... we (i.e. our government) should provide good education to all (regardless of the wealth of parents), basic health care and we should make sure that affordable housing is available. In addition, programs for people who may have screwed up go get back on track are not only humane; they even benefit us as a society.

This doesn't mean at all that people can't have big houses, or fancy cars, or expensive hobbies.

Saying that we don't want people starving or living in the streets, doesn't take away the incentive for people who want bigger houses or more expensive food to work or create wealth.

In Foxy's metaphor, there is a difference between saving a man from drowning... and buying him a Mercedes. A civilized Society should do the first. The second should be left to the free market.

This is complete hogwash.

'nough said, the most brilliant thing I have seen written today.

foxfyre wrote:

As I see it, the liberal concept, however, is that nobody should have to settle for less fish or have to work harder to get fish than anybody else. If policies are put in place to achieve that 'humane' and 'compassionate' goal, however, you also remove the incentive for others to take the risk of trying for better fishing poles and/or a better fish.

I respect an alternative viewpoint, but I don't think this is accurate at all. Not even the most socialist-far-right-extreme-liberal believes that a social programs like welfare can provide "wealth." The right may think that people think being on welfare is easy, but I would wager that they don't know that many people on welfare. Those individuals who abuse the program certainly make a wonderful illustration of conservatives worst fears, but they don't accurately represent those who are in the program. I know many families personally from past volunteer work. None of them want to be on welfare, and it's far from an "easy" life.

foxfyre wrote:

You may have seen this little story that has been circulating around on the internet for the last several months:

First off, I'll say that I love all things clever, so this kind of thing I can appriciate (even if I totally disagree with it).

If we are to believe that the duck, pig, goose, and cow represent the character of liberals, then they are all lazy. Additionally, they are uneducated, looking for handouts, against work, and full of self pity. I just don't think this is true.

Moving on from the creative writing class and into the real world.

If you are against handouts for impovershed or challenged individuals, then you must be furious about handouts for large fiscally-able corparations like Wal-mart.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) wrote:

Over $1 billion in government subsidies have gone into transforming discounter Wal-Mart Stores from a regional discount store operator into the world's largest retailer, according to a report Monday from Good Jobs First, a Washington-based subsidy watchdog group...

source: http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/24/news/fortune500/walmart_subsidies/

T
K
O

Funny how Thurmond never denounced his segragationist views, while Byrd has, and continues to do so in a humble manor. But it's fine, I don't need to engage in a history contest, as long as you acknowledge the voting history of the republican party.

I'm from Missouri, so I'll provide a more practical example: John Ashcroft. In fact, I'm from Springfield, so I know his church, and am very familiar with his religious beliefs. Do you think he is an extremist?

Would you cover up the breast on a statue because you thought it was profane?

T
K
O

So you would or would not cover up the bare breast of a stone statue?

T
K
O

Walmart is not unique in its ability to offer wages to an employee. Why do those subsidies go to them and not to local bussiness or start-up companies that offer direct competition?

Wal-mart sells mostly chinese products. Is that a good investment?

Wanna go fishing when wal-mart is at the pond? Sorry. They bought all the bait, and all the poles. So by time you make a pole and dig up some worms, they've already emptied the pond.

T
K
O

Diest TKO wrote:

Walmart is not unique in its ability to offer wages to an employee. Why do those subsidies go to them and not to local bussiness or start-up companies that offer direct competition?

Wal-mart sells mostly chinese products. Is that a good investment?

Wanna go fishing when wal-mart is at the pond? Sorry. They bought all the bait, and all the poles. So by time you make a pole and dig up some worms, they've already emptied the pond.

T
K
O

See? You're looking at it from the modern Liberal point of view. It isn't "fair" that Wal-mart receive any breaks when others don't. I believe others described my perception of that point of view as 'hogwash'.

The Conservative point of view is based on whether the investment produces a reasonable return; i.e. responsible use of the taxpayer dollars.

I would object to my government investing in ANYTHING that did not produce a reasonable return for my money in some tangible way. It is my money after all. I have no problem with the government investing in anything honorable that provides a good return on the investment. Wal-Mart obviously has provided a good return on the investment.

Whether Wal-Mart trades with China or whatever else it does or doesn't do are subjects for a different debate based on different criteria. Also the small business is eligible for certain tax breaks, low interest loans, grants, et al for which Wal-Mart cannot qualify. So that is a subject for a different debate too.

Walmart is not unique in its ability to offer wages to an employee. Why do those subsidies go to them and not to local bussiness or start-up companies that offer direct competition?

Read it as you wish, but what I am saying is that when you can afford a political presence like walmart can, free enterprise is nothing more than a mask. There is no objective quality about walmart which entitles it to the goverment funds and legal sidesteps it recieves.

We can't get to the point where we discuss what is fair or not.

T
K
O

That $1 billion dollar investment in Wal-Mart, however, has paid off hugely and provided billions upon billions of dollars that the taxpayers won't have to come up with. It was a very very good investment.

Foxfyre wrote:

That $1 billion dollar investment in Wal-Mart, however, has paid off hugely and provided billions upon billions of dollars that the taxpayers won't have to come up with. It was a very very good investment.

Unsupported argument.

Are you saying that americans would not have made the same amount of taxable purchases without walmart? Are you saying that Wal-mart employees are taxed differently than any other american employee? How exactly is this investment providing anything at all? I moves large amounts of capitol out of the US and simultaneously harms domestic industry and therefore jobs.

Walmart is a poor investment. It costs more than it returns. It's "the high price for low cost."

T
K
O