AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I prefer Romney or Huckabee over Obama.

Great, cicerone, that is good news! If you are sincere, you might yet convince me you are an independent, not only on paper but in spirit!!

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
But sadly you and like minded people are what got us into the mess we are in., and so the humor can quickly vanish after just a little thought about your posts.
Hmmm.. I and people like me got us in this mess?
Oh.. can you provide some evidence of that?
Or is asking for evidence niggling when I do it?

I provided the evidence you asked for okie. You then niggled about whether the 1 or 2 points difference showed what cyclops said or not including arguing that your graph was not the numbers you really wanted to use.

I don't think the comparison is a very good one, comparing poll number evidence to an opinion about how we got into this financial mess. I think poll numbers are hard numbers, rather than opinions, so I believe there should be some hard proof in at least with one pollster that Obama is indeed higher than Bush was at the same stage of his first term. In contrast, there are as many opinions about how we got into this financial mess as there are people in this country, parados. Obviously, it was not one single factor that got us here, and so although I blame big spending Democratic philosophies and programs for most of the problem, I do not absolve Republicans of any blame either. And ultimately, I think we need to blame us, the American people, for voting for politicians that deliver the bacon at any cost to the country. Face it, parados, two of the biggest expenses in this country are entitlements, Social Security and Medicare, and interest on the debt, which results from everything including entitlements. Add to entitlements all the other social spending, such as Welfare programs, Endowment for the Arts, Public Radio, National Education Department with all the waste, I've even heard we send home lunches for kids to eat during the weekend, if you can believe that? I realize some of those things are miniscule in scale, such as Endowment for the Arts, but I think such programs are examples of all the waste that can be found in every single federal department and bureaucracy, and all added up it starts to amount to real money. As Everett Dirkson said, "a million here a million there, and eventually we are talking about real money."

I also realize military spending is huge, but Democrats also are part of that policy. Overall, I still contend for good reason that the Democratic Party is largely responsible for the economic mess we are in. I do not blame it on one single program necessarily, but I blame it on a mindset that has been pervasive in all Democratic congresses and presidents during my lifetime of over 50 years, that government can fix any problem and take care of everybody by simply throwing more money at the problem. This includes almost everything, from retirement to education, to health care, the list goes on. One other fact, the Democrats have held sway in Congress for most of the last 50 years, and that is where most of the spending decisions are made.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

I do not blame it on one single program necessarily, but I blame it on a mindset that has been pervasive in all Democratic congresses and presidents during my lifetime of over 50 years, that government can fix any problem and take care of everybody by simply throwing more money at the problem. This includes almost everything, from retirement to education, to health care, the list goes on. One other fact, the Democrats have held sway in Congress for most of the last 50 years, and that is where most of the spending decisions are made.

Here is backup to what I just said. Going back to FDR, note all the blue in the chart, which denotes Democratic Party control. Plus the chart does not even show all the blue for the last 2 years when the deficits and debt have literally gone wild under Obama, Reid, and Pelosi. From 1933 until 2001, the Democrats have held sway in Congress for the vast majority of that time. Consider the fact also, that one huge component of our budget problems are entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, which are spiraling completely out of our ability to do much about them. This is not surprising, given they are very similar to Ponzi schemes. So, these entitlements have been embedded with our budget issues ever since FDR's Democratic Party driven New Deal. I am not saying they do not help some people, but I am simply pointing out that even good things can spiral out of control, beyond our ability to pay for them. Unfortunately, the government has never told the entire truth to the American people in regard to these programs.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/Congress-Graph.png/463px-Congress-Graph.png

0 Replies

@parados,

PErhaps, how Obama is a tool of George Soros or how Obama is Hitler.

0 Replies

This morning's edition of the BBC World NEws had a long feature on the winner of the Nobel PEace PRize for 1935, which was actually awarded in 1936 Carl von Ossietzky.

Ossietzky was then a prisoner of the Nazis who refused to release him to make the trip to Norway.

Ossietzky was a journalist who took a public stand against Hitler and his party.

What is interesting . . . and, since okie is momentarily quiet on this matter, perhaps, I should not write about it . . . is the BBC described the Nazis as being anti-left. That sounds like right to me.

1 Reply

Quote:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Year……TOTAL US CIVIL EMPLOYMENT
1980……………..99 million [CARTER]
1988…………… 115 million [REAGAN]
1992…………….118 million [BUSH41]
2000……………137 million [CLINTON]
2007………..….146 million [BUSH43]
2008………….. 145 million [BUSH43]
2009,……….....140 million [OBAMA]
2010.……………139 million [OBAMA] as of November 2010

Year.…….PERCENT OF CIVILIAN POPULATION EMPLOYED
1980…………………………………….59.2 [CARTER]
1988…………………………………….62.3 [REAGAN]
1992…………………………………….61.5 [BUSH41]
2000…………………………………….64.4 [CLINTON]
2007…………………………………….63.0 [BUSH43]
2008…………………………………….62.2 [BUSH43]
2009…………………………………….59.3 [OBAMA]
2010…………………………………….58.2 [OBAMA] as of November 2010

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

In case you missed it, ican posted the same garbage again. Just scroll up if you missed it. Meanwhile, I am going back to bed. The soporific effect is overpowering!

0 Replies

The ILL find a repetition of truth to have a "soporific effect on them that is overpowering!

Progress!

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

So Clinton heads up the list, ican, of course while Republican Gingrich was spearheading Congress, then the 2 Bushes second and third !!

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

What is interesting . . . and, since okie is momentarily quiet on this matter, perhaps, I should not write about it . . . is the BBC described the Nazis as being anti-left. That sounds like right to me.

I believe it would be more accurate to say the Nazis were anti-communist, but they were also anti-right or anti-conservative. They not only attacked Russia, but they also tried to conquer Great Britain, which was definitely not a bastion of leftists, pom. In fact, I believe Winston Churchill may have been one of the greatest conservatives in history.

If the Nazis had been anti-everything left, they would have opposed themselves, which doesn't make much sense, pom. By the way, if you are going to assert Hitler and Nazism was leftist, are you also prepared to say the same about Mussolini and his brand of Fascism as well?

Hitler, as well as Mussolini and his Fascism, were "Third Wayers," which is my term to describe their particular brands or hybrids of leftist and rightest. If you look at their policies, I believe they are more left than right, by virtue of the fact that any capitalism they allowed was only by permission and for the benefit of the State, to redistribute according to their systems of national socialism.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

I believe it would be more accurate to say the Nazis were anti-communist, but they were also anti-right or anti-conservative.

We had had this discussion quite often.

But to say that the Nazis were "anti-conservative" really is the most stupid, dumb thing you've said so far, okie.

My good Lord: all the old-style conservative stuff - that was one of the main parts of their ideology. (And that's how they caught the conservatives in the 20's of last century).

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

okie wrote:
I believe it would be more accurate to say the Nazis were anti-communist, but they were also anti-right or anti-conservative.

We had had this discussion quite often.
But to say that the Nazis were "anti-conservative" really is the most stupid, dumb thing you've said so far, okie.

Actually it is brilliant and right on target. Just because I don't agree with leftist professors makes no difference, Walter. I would rather be right than in agreement with leftists.

Quote:

My good Lord: all the old-style conservative stuff - that was one of the main parts of their ideology. (And that's how they caught the conservatives in the 20's of last century).

And just what were those "old-style conservative things? Surely you would not be talking about hating Jewish capitalists, confiscating property, and condemning profiteering and all of that, would you?

To be honest, Walter, my patience with leftists spinning history to suit them has just about run out. If you wish to continue this, go to the dictator thread and actually post evidence to support your contentions.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

Actually it is brilliant and right on target.

LOL

Nothing like seeing a fool declare themselves 'brilliant.'

Quote:

Just because I don't agree with leftist professors makes no difference, Walter. I would rather be wrong than in agreement with leftists.

There, I fixed that for ya. It's much more accurate this way.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Typical leftist. You will misquote to fit your own ends, just as leftists will twist history to make it fit their template. You do fit the mold, cyclops.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Typical leftist. You will misquote to fit your own ends, just as leftists will twist history to make it fit their template. You do fit the mold, cyclops.

Why should anyone take your word for what 'history' is, Okie?

You're not a historian.
You have no experience with History or the study of it at all.
You've done practically no research and certainly no original research.
You ignore problems with your theories. You usually don't even respond to posts that show you are wrong unless it's dragged out of you.
You clearly start from conclusions and look for evidence.

Nothing about that says 'wow, this guy really knows what he's talking about.' On the other hand, Liberal history professors DO know what they are talking about (I actually don't know whether the profs are liberal or conservative, but hey, let's go with your pejorative term). They DO have experience with history and the study of it. They HAVE done research on the subject, from multiple angles. They publish their work in peer-reviewed journals and respond to criticism.

This is why these guys continually are seen as authorities in our society, Okie, and you aren't taken seriously on this issue - by anyone. Because they are experts and you are not. The sooner you figure this out, the less of an ass you will make of yourself on this and other topics.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Typical leftist. You will misquote to fit your own ends, just as leftists will twist history to make it fit their template. You do fit the mold, cyclops.

Why should anyone take your word for what 'history' is, Okie?

You don't have to, and I don't believe I have ever asked anyone to. What everyone should do is read what happened and use common sense, and I think you will be compelled to come to a common sense conclusion. For example, if it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it is pretty likely to be a duck. This is not rocket science. All that is required is common sense and intellectual honesty. Sadly, the last quality is hard to find here on this forum with you guys on the left side of the aisle.

Quote:

You're not a historian. You have no experience with History or the study of it at all. You've done practically no research and certainly no original research. You ignore problems with your theories. You usually don't even respond to posts that show you are wrong unless it's dragged out of you.
You clearly start from conclusions and look for evidence.

I can read. I graduated from high school and college, and took my share of history courses as required. I have had the benefit of a dad and other relatives that served in World War II and had an appreciation of history. I have also had my round of experience in the military.

Quote:

Nothing about that says 'wow, this guy really knows what he's talking about.' On the other hand, Liberal history professors DO know what they are talking about (I actually don't know whether the profs are liberal or conservative, but hey, let's go with your pejorative term). They DO have experience with history and the study of it. They HAVE done research on the subject, from multiple angles. They publish their work in peer-reviewed journals and respond to criticism.

This is why these guys continually are seen as authorities in our society, Okie, and you aren't taken seriously on this issue - by anyone. Because they are experts and you are not. The sooner you figure this out, the less of an ass you will make of yourself on this and other topics.

Cycloptichorn

A liberal professor is not required to tell us what color is blue or red. Common sense and eyesight is all that is required, along with some intellectual honesty, something you seem to be sorely lacking. Bottom line, you refuse to debate the Nazi 25 points, nor will you actually cite evidence of what Hitler did that was conservative or right leaning. As I've already said to Walter, go to the dictator thread if you are actually serious about debating real evidence. If not, forget it.

3 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

A liberal professor is not required to tell us what color is blue or red.

History is a lot more complicated than two competing colors, and you're a fool if you can't see that, Okie.

What industry were you in? Oil and gas, something geological? I now proclaim I know as much if not more than you do about your field. Why? Well, I'm college educated. I took geology courses. I have relatives who work in the oil industry and hell, I drive a car and my house is powered by Coal. By your estimation, I'm someone who should be respected and listened to on matters relating to complex technical details regarding oil and gas drilling and mineral exploration. And if you disagree with me, it's because you're a dirty ******* Conservative who likes to lie about everything and doesn't use 'common sense.'

Wouldn't you agree that's appropriate?

Quote:

Bottom line, you refuse to debate the Nazi 25 points, nor will you actually cite evidence of what Hitler did that was conservative or right leaning.

The 25 points were NAZI PROPAGANDA, Okie. Don't you get that? They were lies told to get people to put them in charge. Which worked. Some are leftist in nature, some authoritarian, some racist, some Conservative, some right-wing Nationalist.

Hating Jews was a Conservative, right-wing position in Germany at the time. Do you even know the definition of 'Conservative?' It means "Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change." Much of what the Nazi's did reflected so-called 'traditional values' of the German people. Walter has kindly tried to explain this to you, but you're too full of yourself to listen to him.

Quote:

As I've already said to Walter, go to the dictator thread if you are actually serious about debating real evidence.

Serious about debating? With you? Why would I be? It's a waste of my time, because you are not a competent opponent.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
A liberal professor is not required to tell us what color is blue or red.
History is a lot more complicated than two competing colors, and you're a fool if you can't see that, Okie.
What industry were you in? Oil and gas, something geological? I now proclaim I know as much if not more than you do about your field. Why? Well, I'm college educated. I took geology courses. Cycloptichorn

Actually, it does not and should not take a geologist to identify sandstone from shale or granite. They are defined by their appearance and composition. The same principle applies to political philosophies. Political philosophies are not the sole property of leftist history professors. Again, go to the dictator thread if you are actually interested in debating this honestly. P.S. Hating Jews and killing them, or taking away rights of any person in the name of common good, is not a conservative trait. It never was, not even in Germany. Conservatism protects the rights and responsibilities of individuals, while liberalism takes them away.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
A liberal professor is not required to tell us what color is blue or red.
History is a lot more complicated than two competing colors, and you're a fool if you can't see that, Okie.
What industry were you in? Oil and gas, something geological? I now proclaim I know as much if not more than you do about your field. Why? Well, I'm college educated. I took geology courses. Cycloptichorn
Actually, it does not and should not take a geologist to identify sandstone from shale or granite. They are defined by their appearance and composition.

Sure, I can tell the difference between those two things; that, to you, means that I know as much as you do about Geology? That I should be making recommendations and proclaiming what the truth is? That we should be making plans based on my assessment of a situation, in terms of geology?

Be serious here.

Quote:

The same principle applies to political philosophies. Political philosophies are not the sole property of leftist history professors. Again, go to the dictator thread if you are actually interested in debating this honestly.

You usually have to have a debate partner who is interested in 'honest debate' in order to do that, and you clearly are not. You've been smacked down - hard - in that thread in the past and you just ignored it. I won't waste my time there; instead, I'll just continue to point out that you know nothing about history and don't even do the simplest of analysis, instead just sucking up propaganda like the fools it was designed to affect.

Quote:

P.S. Hating Jews and killing them, or taking away rights of any person in the name of common good, is not a conservative trait. It never was, not even in Germany.

You are totally and 100% wrong, re: Germany; and re:, what the definition of Conservative is. Blaming Jews for the problems of German society most certainly was a Conservative, right-wing trait in Germany at the time. If you did even a tiny bit of research on this you would see that it is abundantly clear.

You should be at least able to keep straight the fact that there is a difference between Conservative actions, and the political philosophy of modern Conservatism. But you don't seem to even realize the distinction exists.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Actually, it does not and should not take a geologist to identify sandstone from shale or granite. They are defined by their appearance and composition.
Sure, I can tell the difference between those two things; that, to you, means that I know as much as you do about Geology? That I should be making recommendations and proclaiming what the truth is? That we should be making plans based on my assessment of a situation, in terms of geology?

That does not mean you know as much, but there is the possibility that if I mis-identified sandstone from shale or granite, then I fail to "see the forest for the trees." I believe that has happened with historians in regard to Hitler. They have bought into a German or European context of conservative or right wing, but they have failed to recognize that we have learned much and we now have a much better understanding of what defines left vs right in the world today. I would imagine that a formation might have been mis-identified back in the early days of geology, but we now have corrected some of the characteristics and nomenclatures of formations, just as we should understand political persuasions better now.

Quote:

Quote:
The same principle applies to political philosophies. Political philosophies are not the sole property of leftist history professors. Again, go to the dictator thread if you are actually interested in debating this honestly.
You usually have to have a debate partner who is interested in 'honest debate' in order to do that, and you clearly are not. You've been smacked down - hard - in that thread in the past and you just ignored it. I won't waste my time there; instead, I'll just continue to point out that you know nothing about history and don't even do the simplest of analysis, instead just sucking up propaganda like the fools it was designed to affect.

I've been smacked down by sarcastic comments about me and my sources, but precious little actual evidence and debate points have been offered to counter my evidence, cyclops.

Quote:

Quote:
P.S. Hating Jews and killing them, or taking away rights of any person in the name of common good, is not a conservative trait. It never was, not even in Germany.
You are totally and 100% wrong, re: Germany; and re:, what the definition of Conservative is. Blaming Jews for the problems of German society most certainly was a Conservative, right-wing trait in Germany at the time. If you did even a tiny bit of research on this you would see that it is abundantly clear.

I have done enough research to find out that Hitler equated the economic problems of Germany with the so-called "greed" and "profiteering" associated with the capitalism practiced by Jews. Now, be serious cyclops, there is nothing right wing about that. In fact, it is not far different from the liberal mantra right here on this forum. Was it a day or two ago that plainoldme was suggesting CEOs be slaughtered in their offices, because she thinks CEOs are greedy and selfish.

Quote:

You should be at least able to keep straight the fact that there is a difference between Conservative actions, and the political philosophy of modern Conservatism. But you don't seem to even realize the distinction exists.
Cycloptichorn

I have always made it clear that the distinction of left vs right as applied to Hitler, the Nazis, and Fascism should be in context with how we now understand those philosophies now. Hopefully, we have a better understanding of those things now than existed in Germany in the 20s and 30s. Did that point totally escape you?

2 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know