AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Diest TKO wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
And what about all of the dead Americans that were killed in wars gotten into by Democrat Presidents?
Are those casualties OK?

2 of the most deadly wars ever fought by the US (US casualty wise) were gotten into by democrat presidents.

Why are you ignoring that fact?

I'm not ignoring anything, I'm just trying to (1) address how inapropriate Cheney's remarks were, and (2) ask why they are worth defending?

Trying to bait a switch MM is what Foxfyre claims the liberals do. Be careful, you might get your membership card revoked.

T
K
O

I'm not defending his comments either.
I just find it interesting that those of you that hate Bush seem to be ignoring all of the US casualties caused by dem presidents, while condemning Bush.

Yes, we have lost 4000 soldiers in Iraq, but that pales in comparison to how many we lost due to dem presidents.

Why is it bad for Bush but not bad for dem presidents?
I am just asking for you to apply the same rules to everyone.

0 Replies

could you please spray some WD 40 in your ears, mm.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
And what about all of the dead Americans that were killed in wars gotten into by Democrat Presidents?
Are those casualties OK?

2 of the most deadly wars ever fought by the US (US casualty wise) were gotten into by democrat presidents.

Why are you ignoring that fact?

I'm not ignoring anything, I'm just trying to (1) address how inapropriate Cheney's remarks were, and (2) ask why they are worth defending?

Trying to bait a switch MM is what Foxfyre claims the liberals do. Be careful, you might get your membership card revoked.

T
K
O

I'm not defending his comments either.
I just find it interesting that those of you that hate Bush seem to be ignoring all of the US casualties caused by dem presidents, while condemning Bush.

Yes, we have lost 4000 soldiers in Iraq, but that pales in comparison to how many we lost due to dem presidents.

Why is it bad for Bush but not bad for dem presidents?
I am just asking for you to apply the same rules to everyone.

It's not how many were lost MM, it's that ANY were lost. We were lied to. Bottom line. It doesn't matter if it was 4 or 4,000 soldiers lost. The same rules do apply for all, you just fail to see this war for what it is.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
And what about all of the dead Americans that were killed in wars gotten into by Democrat Presidents?
Are those casualties OK?

2 of the most deadly wars ever fought by the US (US casualty wise) were gotten into by democrat presidents.

Why are you ignoring that fact?

I'm not ignoring anything, I'm just trying to (1) address how inapropriate Cheney's remarks were, and (2) ask why they are worth defending?

Trying to bait a switch MM is what Foxfyre claims the liberals do. Be careful, you might get your membership card revoked.

T
K
O

I'm not defending his comments either.
I just find it interesting that those of you that hate Bush seem to be ignoring all of the US casualties caused by dem presidents, while condemning Bush.

Yes, we have lost 4000 soldiers in Iraq, but that pales in comparison to how many we lost due to dem presidents.

Why is it bad for Bush but not bad for dem presidents?
I am just asking for you to apply the same rules to everyone.

It's not how many were lost MM, it's that ANY were lost. We were lied to. Bottom line. It doesn't matter if it was 4 or 4,000 soldiers lost. The same rules do apply for all, you just fail to see this war for what it is.

T
K
O

No, I fail to see it for what you claim it is.
Having been there, I have a different perspective.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

We'd perhaps assume as well that a sane and non-criminal version of 'conservatism' would not, when asked about this...

smile and respond with, "So?"

The question Cheney responded 'So?' to was not 'what do you think when you see coffins of servicemen who have died in the line of duty?'

The question was 'what do you think of the polls that show fluctuation in public opinion concerning the war?'

We'd assume that you might be honest and admit this.

But I won't hold my breath.

0 Replies

So then you found the WMDs? Fox news will be very excited.

Unless you are ready to admit that entering on a false premise is grounds for a withdrawl or at minimum the discussion of withdrawl plan (for the near future), your extra perspective doesn't really amount to much.

Foxfyre liked to claim that giving people handouts made them too reliant on the system. Where is the good ole' conservative spirit now? If we stay there, the people of Iraq will never be able to stand on their own. We can't fight a civil war for them.

Where is the conservative philosophy in anything that conservatives are promoting?

Where?

T
K
O

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The question Cheney responded 'So?' to was not 'what do you think when you see coffins of servicemen who have died in the line of duty?'

The question was 'what do you think of the polls that show fluctuation in public opinion concerning the war?'

Actually, it was 'Two thirds of Americans say "It's not worth fighting".'

We'd assume that you might be honest and admit this.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Where is the conservative philosophy in anything that conservatives are promoting?

Where?

Rumours are that it has been secretly flown to Syria right before the invasion of Iraq....

0 Replies

A better question would be, what are Conservatives promoting that is not conservative? Answer that and we might have a shot at explaining the conservative philosophy behind it.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

A better question would be, what are Conservatives promoting that is not conservative? Answer that and we might have a shot at explaining the conservative philosophy behind it.

No Fox. It's not a better question.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Ah, then you don't have an answer for it. Didn't think so, but thought I would give you a chance. Sort of makes your question ring really hollow though, don't you think?

0 Replies

Fox - You're being dishonest or deceitful. You pick. I have in numerous posts now illustrated how conservatives don't act in a conservative manner. I don't need to answer your very answered question while I wait for your answer to mine.

Drawing a tail on me doesn't mean I'm going to chase it. Start being honest and answer up. Especially after your claims that liberals "bait and switch. You're making a fool of yourself.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Fox - You're being dishonest or deceitful. You pick. I have in numerous posts now illustrated how conservatives don't act in a conservative manner. I don't need to answer your very answered question while I wait for your answer to mine.

Drawing a tail on me doesn't mean I'm going to chase it. Start being honest and answer up. Especially after your claims that liberals "bait and switch. You're making a fool of yourself.

T
K
O

Oh well, I didn't realize you were talking about your prejudice against conservatives and were just throwing in a trollish post bashing them. I thought you actually had a particular conservative initiative in mind.

Now if you would like to describe a practice that you consider deceitful or otherwise nonconservative, we might be able to actually discuss that.

And thank you for admitting that deceitful practices are not a conservative principle. I fully agree.

0 Replies

Wow, you are useless. Learn to read, then try again. You asked a question which had already been answered. I asked a question which, given your professed understanding of conservative philosophy, should be easy for you to answer.

I don't have a prejudice against conservatives. I think the idea has a great deal of merit. I waiting for one to appear someday. However when he or she actually appears, the republicans will probably marginalze them, and instead protect the status quo.

It's sad really. It will be the thing that destroys the party. Sorry Lincoln.

My bottom line is this: The republican party is not made of conservatives anymore. It's made of bussiness men and women, it's made of the evangelical choir, and it's made of the warhawk.

They didn't leave any room for conservative thought.
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Wow, you are useless. Learn to read, ...

You can't spell your way out of a paper bag, yet think you have standing to accuse Foxy of not knowing how to read?

Laughing

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Wow, you are useless. Learn to read, then try again. ....
K
O

Are you "contending" something again, Diest, that other people can't spell? Strange accusation from someone that can't spell, nor do you know the definitions of common words. Laughing

0 Replies

Now that the idiot-troll-choir has arrived to critique my spelling/typing, the game has begun.

I'll gladly entertain your explanations for how you believe Fox's reply was in responce to my points made.

Foxfyre wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Fox - You're being dishonest or deceitful. You pick. I have in numerous posts now illustrated how conservatives don't act in a conservative manner. I don't need to answer your very answered question while I wait for your answer to mine.

Drawing a tail on me doesn't mean I'm going to chase it. Start being honest and answer up. Especially after your claims that liberals "bait and switch. You're making a fool of yourself.

T
K
O

Oh well, I didn't realize you were talking about your prejudice against conservatives and were just throwing in a trollish post bashing them. I thought you actually had a particular conservative initiative in mind.

Now if you would like to describe a practice that you consider deceitful or otherwise nonconservative, we might be able to actually discuss that.

And thank you for admitting that deceitful practices are not a conservative principle. I fully agree.

Tico & Okie - please explain how from reading my post(s) Fox would...

in blue - ignore the specific examples I have given in the past.
in red - not have read the numerous examples I have provided.
in green - assert this statement.

Since you like to put my credibility up for critique, I'll let you put your's on display. Go for it.

The truth is that Fox doesn't want to relenquish control of the dialogue to anyone else. You can' ask Fox a question and expect an answer, but fox can ask questions that have been answered to change the subject.

T
K
O

0 Replies

I haven't called you 'useless' or any other names though TKO, and I've tried really hard not to have discussions peppered with ad hominem with you. Maybe if you didn't do that, you might look, I don't know, smarter?

(Okay okay I know. That's one. Smile

)

0 Replies

Okay, I'll bite. Here is your quote:

Quote:

My bottom line is this: The republican party is not made of conservatives anymore. It's made of bussiness men and women, it's made of the evangelical choir, and it's made of the warhawk.

Since when are businessmen and women excluded from being conservative? Business is an activity in a free market, which is an institution that conservatives believe in, so where's your beef? There are also liberal businessmen and women. Same with evangelicals, conservative people can be religious, and so can liberals. Same with war, it is a conservative principle to defend the country, and I thought it was also something liberals claim to want to do? The main disagreement is just how it is applied. As far as I know, isolationism is more of a libertarian thing than a conservative thing. Liberals have started wars, example, LBJ and Vietnam. I would agree that conservatives would try to apply prudence to the use of force, but where necessary, do it with conviction and perserverance.

If you consider George Bush to be a good example of conservatism, that is probably one source of your utter confusion.

0 Replies

A good answer Okie, but I'm not sure it addressed what TKO was saying though I didn't, however, feel any responsibility for answering a question that the person already answered himself.

The idea that business men and women cannot be conservatives is as ludicrous as the idea that business men and women cannot be liberal.
Both conservatives and liberals have to have jobs.

Probably more small business owners vote Republican than Democrat because they are the group most affected by regulation, threats of unionizations, mandates, etc. and the Republicans most often take their side.

Probably more big business owners vote Democrat than Republican for various reasons, not the least of which is that they are already dealing with regulations, unionization, and mandates and don't mind if their smaller competition is forced into the same circumstances. Further government spending is more likely to benefit them and Democrats, at least until the current administration, had the reputation of being big spenders.

The idea that there aren't as many religious liberals as conservatives I think also won't hold up if we take a close look at the demographics. It is true that probably there are more Atheists voting Democrat than Republican and most of the so-called Religious Right votes Republican, but go through most church parking lots at election time and you see as many bumper stickers for Democrats as you see for Republicans.

And then considering Clinton's forays into Haiti and Somalia and Bosnia plus bombing Iraq or Sudan or some other Middle East installation every time there was a bimbo eruption, the total military deaths during the Clinton administration were not much, if any, less than what we're seeing in the current administration despite the Iraq war. While every death is tragic and properly mourned, it doesn't suggest that a Democrat president is any less of a war hawk than is a Republican president.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know