AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

No, he is kidding Frank. He is on 'my side' in this debate only because he and I agree on most of the basics contained with the ideology I have been calling MAC. I certainly don't see that list as modern American values and I know he doesn't either. Somewhere in the back of my mind I had the impression that he isn't even religious; perhaps is agnostic or Atheist though I don't know that for sure and don't care.

practice?

They are beyond the practicing stage.

Addendum: What I mean is that nobody thinks anybody should be put to death for simply striking or cursing their parents. At the very least premeditated murder should be involved before the death penalty is applied.

I do think probably most MACs think a death penalty appropriate in severe/extreme circumstances and the basic principle of consequences for one person harming another on that list certainly would be a factor in MAC ideology.

My concern is that some who visit this thread purely to bash and condemn people will almost certainly not appreciate or accept any subtleties and will use Ican's post to claim that he condones killing people for relatively minor offenses, claim that he condones slavery etc. etc. etc. That is why I caution Ican against being too subtle with numbnuts and those who already look for any excuse to condemn him.

Boy...are you kidding yourself on this one., Foxfyre!

I go way back with Ican.

He even presented a "proof" that GOD exists. Mathematical certainty. We knocked heads over it for about two years in Abuzz.

Ican is not an agnostic...he is not an atheist...and he is NOT KIDDING.

Well I am going on five years with Ican and, whether or not I agree with his point of view, I have yet seen him argue anything irrationally. Perhaps in an annoying way to people knowing that it pulls their chains, but irrationally? No. Never. Not once. He sure does have some fun with the numbnuts though.

Well...if you think his last commentary is "irrational"...then Foxfyre, you HAVE seem him argue irrationally.

He is NOT kidding. He is not an agnostic. He is not an atheist. He is NOT kidding.

Well he can speak for himself, but even if he agrees with everything on that list, which I seriously believe he does not, he has only expressed an opinion with which I would strongly disagree. It is in no way irrational. At least it isn't irrational in the same way that it is irrational to condemn all Republicans/conservatism because there are dubious elements who belong to that party/ideology but not condemn all Democrats/liberals despite the fact that there are dubious elements within that party/ideology.

Foxfyre, you had written:

That was in response to my comment that he was not kidding.

I simply assumed, since you posted it in response to what I had said, that you considered it unlikely that he was not kidding, because the post was irrational.

Sorry if I misunderstood you.

I was not characterizing it as irrational except as an assumption about your response.

In any case, whether irrational or not...Ican is not an agnostic; not an atheist; and not kidding in the subject post.

I think it highly unlikely that he would defend every statement in that list. So if he read carefully what was in that list and posted it anyway as an example of Modern American Conservatism, then yes, I believe he was kidding. My statement you quoted was in response to your statement that Ican was irrational, not in response to your statement that he was not kidding.

Maybe this once he wasn't just pulling your (and some other people's) chain and was being serious. And maybe just this once he was irrational.

I rather doubt that, but again, he can speak for himself.

Corporations have been shifting their contributions to the party they believe could be ruling. They're watching their back. It's hypocrisy no matter how one looks at it -- buttering your bread on the other side of your ideology because of fear they might get something taken away, like the weak oversight of actually examining those financial statements that CEO's are suppose to sign after Enron and Arthur Anderson (who used to own a huge building down the street from where I live -- it's gone, of course). You still have not mentioned any one "executive " that has contributed to the Democratic party, carefully skidding by once again. Those statistics are available anywhere if you Google -- so why shouldn't the more liberal sites report those facts. There are also other conservative publications besides the WSJ that have reported the shift. Didn't you bother to input the percentages before the corporations got cold feed with the Republicans? Is it an attempted bribe, especially for more corporate welfare? That's where the CEO's come in. The fear they will lose one of their yachts or extra mansions. Get real.

I am quite real. I am fully aware that those who seek to benefit from government will appeal to those with the power to benefit them. Before 1994, that power was mostly in the hands of the Democrats. Between 1994 and 2006 that power was mostly in the hands of the Republicans. Since 2006 that power has been mostly in the hands of the Democrats. When you follow the money, you see each shift in power prompt a shift in the ratio of corporate contributions.

Which makes this quote of your prejudicial in its assumption that it is conservatism that inspires corporate greed and corruption:

Again, the Bierce quote is directed towards the organization of the corporation, not who they contribute money to. The individuals he's referring to are the executives or officers, like the Ken Lays and John Thains, both only caught because their corporations failed. How many corporate officers of failed banks will be caught with their hand in the cookie jar? Will they be Democrats or Republicans? I suppose you believe a bunch of American liberals got together and created the structure of the Modern American Corporation (MAC). After you get over your denial, there are ways to cure you of your conservative addiction.

No,wait, you'll never get past the first step.

Foxie will never reach the first step.

What do you see as the first step?

Yes, I believe many liberals have founded corporations. Do you honestly think Starbucks and Ben and Jerry's were founded and are operated by conservatives? How about the entertainment industry, most particularly Hollywood? I don't think the executives of Apple or IBM have ever given more contributions to Republicans than Democrats. And the executives of all those troubled financial institutions were huge supporters of Obama in this last campaign.

Now yes, the concept of free trade, free enterprise, intiative, building a better mousetrap, creating profits along with jobs, are all solid MAC (Modern American Conservative) principles but corporate misconduct is in no way a MAC principle. You will notice that Ken Lays golfed frequently with Bill Clinton for instance, but it was Republican conservatives who prosecuted and brought Lays et al down. That is not to say that Democrats, had they been in power, would not have done so. For all their faults, Republicans have not been shy in prosecuting and enforcing the law re corporate misconduct.

You'll have to argue a better case that it is conservative principles that create such organizations as Enron before you will have made a credible argument here.

Foxie, Try to guess why even republicans donated to the Obama campaign?

This will be easy to find on the Web as it's all over the place:

"Presidents Duel With Clubs!

President Clinton may have just squeaked his budget through Congress, but he has already returned to playing ball with the enemy.

Clinton began his vacation with a bipartisan golf match Saturday at the Country Club of the Rockies in Vail, Colo., teaming up with fellow Democrat (and golf pro) Jack Nicklaus to take on the Republican duo of former president Gerald Ford and Houston businessman Ken Lay.

During a photo op on the greens, Clinton was asked about the significance of a Democrat playing with a Republican. The eager putter responded: "It's the way I'm going to try to run the rest of my administration. I don't ever want the kind of polarization we had the last six month." That photo op has been spun like a out-if-control golf hook.

Right -- the Democrats who didn't hold the Senate and Congress were against prosecuting Ken Lay and the other criminal execs. The corporation had to fail for the Republicans to wake up out of a sound sleep.

Again, the straws you grasp at are strawmen.

Step One: admitting that you are a conservative Republican and your ideology in unmanageable.

Starbucks and Ben & Jerry began as partnerships and grew to become corporations, thanks to Howard Schultz, owner of the Seattle Sonics, and who signs off on the corporate annual report. Maybe he should be investigated. His coffee is too burnt and strong.

No doubt that liberals have formed corporations -- Costco, for instance. Let's see, who's broken the law and been prosecuted from Costco, Ben & Jerry, and Starbuck's? Fill me in.

No, free trade, et al, are concepts of a capitalistic society, not an invention of Modern American Corporations. BTW, as far as built a better mousetrap, name three Republican inventors.

Foxfyre, you are right as usual. I was kidding. I was poking fun at the idea that there exists a consensus among either conservatives or liberals about what are TAV (i.e., Traditional American Values). I think it true, but cannot PROVE it, that there was PROBABLY a time when such a consensus existed--perhaps back in the 18th century. I think it was based on the Bible's both old and new testaments in general and on the Book of Exodus, chapeters 20 and 21 in particular.

MY traditional values are based on commandments 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the USA, and its 27 amendments. One amendment fundamental to my traditional values, but at odds with some of Exodus, Chapter 21, is Amendment XIII (1865)
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

However, I believe it consistent with part of Exodus, Chapter 21, that those persons who deny others one or more of their inalienable rights, forfeit those same rights they deny others.

By the way, Frank Apisa, I never claimed that I PROVED God exists. What I repeatedly claimed was God PROBABLY exists. My claim was based on my calcualtion of the probability that humans evolved from their common ancestor with the mouse by chance. I computed that chance to be far less than one chance in 10 to the millionth power. So I concluded that the probability human exists by design is so close to certain that I cannot believe humans exist by chance. If humans exist by design, then there has to be a designer. I think God is PROBABLY that designer, but cannot show that much more PROVE that either.

However, there are some who claim that there is a good chance that the universe has existed for an infinite time not a finite time, and therefore even an infinitesimal chance is certain over that infinite time. Not only can they not PROVE the universe has existed for an infinite time, they have not shown the universe has PROBABLY existed for an infinite time.

I'll wait and see what tomorrow brings.

First no Clinton budget EVER made it through Congress. Even when he had a Democratic majority, his first budget was trashed immediately because it was so bad. He improved the second but it was hardly recognizable after Congress got through with it. After that he had to approve or veto Republican budgets and he did get along pretty well with the Republican majority on that score during the rest of his tenure. It was one reason that much of his presidency has been and probably will continue to be rated mostly an economic success.

Unfortunately, by 2003, George W. Bush got a different kind of Republican majority, one that acted more like liberal Democrats than conservative Republicans and he paid a very dear price for that.

As to the rest of your post, I'm having trouble finding the relevance to the points we were discussing.

Well when you look at it that way, I can't say that there aren't some fundamentalists out there who wouldn't support all the stuff on that list because there are some who take the Bible very very literally no matter how irrational that is. But I disagree that such would be considered traditional American values now and the folks who wrote the words were never in America so far as we know. I rather assign those Americans who would now favor enforcing that entire list to the fringe along with those who think plants have feelings or who want to put bloomers on horses or change the term for fish into 'sea kittens' on the theory fewer people would be inclined to harm a sea kitten. All are well intentioned, but part of our great American kookdom just the same.

That's really by the seat-of-your-pants -- the main part of the first budget was a tax hike on the very wealthy of $ 220 billion, upped to $ 240.00 billion by a Democratic legislature. The compromise included spending cuts and passed. Not that many first drafts of Presidential budgets get through the legislature -- there have always been compromises. Until the Republican controlled Bush legislature began signing off on budgets like they were afraid of Bush.

The rest of the post are questions posed that have a lot to do with what conservatism's changeling ideology means to your interpretation of what conservatism is today. Conservatism can't change -- that's the point. It can relabel itself with "Neo-Con," your Big "MAC," or any other rhetorical nonsense. It still remains the philosophy of stagnation.