AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Foxfyre wrote:

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. )

You also fail to answer my questions, so I really don't care what you do or don't call me. You choose not to participate when the heat is on. Don't pat yourself on the back.

T
K
O

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Since when are businessmen and women excluded from being conservative?

They aren't. My point is that those individuals will put the interest of bussiness in conflict with the interest of the americna people.

okie wrote:

Business is an activity in a free market, which is an institution that conservatives believe in, so where's your beef?

I spoke about one beef with the Wal-mart bit. Why should our government not intervien in bussiness when bussiness makes choices that effect our government and it's people. Especially when the effect is negitive.

okie wrote:

There are also liberal businessmen and women. Same with evangelicals, conservative people can be religious, and so can liberals.

Certainly. However, I see more liberal understanding how to separate church and state, and separate bussiness and state.

okie wrote:

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.

This is an agree able statement. I think however the "how" is not so trivial.

okie wrote:

As far as I know, isolationism is more of a libertarian thing than a conservative thing.

Correct.

okie wrote:

Liberals have started wars, example, LBJ and Vietnam.

Here's the difference. LBJ may have picked a fight, but he did so and the US understood that they were fighting communism etc etc.

With Iraq, we were told a absolute lie.

okie wrote:

I would agree that conservatives would try to apply prudence to the use of force, but where necessary, do it with conviction and perserverance.

Then I would imagine that you are furious about how Iraq has turned out.

okie wrote:

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

I don't. I look at the right political stage and then I look at the voters.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Here's the difference. LBJ may have picked a fight, but he did so and the US understood that they were fighting communism etc etc.

With Iraq, we were told a absolute lie.

You're being dishonest or deceitful. You pick.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
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. )

You also fail to answer my questions, so I really don't care what you do or don't call me. You choose not to participate when the heat is on. Don't pat yourself on the back.

T
K
O

Okay then give me another chance. Please restate a question that you posed to me that you hadn't already answered in your post? My intent is not to discourage honest debate here.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
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. )

You also fail to answer my questions, so I really don't care what you do or don't call me. You choose not to participate when the heat is on. Don't pat yourself on the back.

T
K
O

Okay then give me another chance. Please restate a question that you posed to me that you hadn't already answered in your post? My intent is not to discourage honest debate here.

I asked what is conservative about what republicans promote?

T
K
O

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Here's the difference. LBJ may have picked a fight, but he did so and the US understood that they were fighting communism etc etc.

With Iraq, we were told a absolute lie.

You're being dishonest or deceitful. You pick.

You talk a big game but your moves are pretty little league. If you'd like to make this statement, you'll have to illustrate one or both of these from the statement.

You however don't fair well when you have to use you own ideas. You prefer to troll and critiques others without contributing.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Hey, Diest. I see you're in Rolla. I was at Ft Leonard Wood for 4 years.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Here's the difference. LBJ may have picked a fight, but he did so and the US understood that they were fighting communism etc etc.

With Iraq, we were told a absolute lie.

You're being dishonest or deceitful. You pick.

You talk a big game but your moves are pretty little league. If you'd like to make this statement, you'll have to illustrate one or both of these from the statement.

You however don't fair well when you have to use you own ideas. You prefer to troll and critiques others without contributing.

T
K
O

I wasn't aware I talked a big game ... I would certainly never accuse you of that.

The Bush League play is your tired, "We were told a lie to get into Iraq," line.

Have you read this document ----------> AUMF

That is a law passed by the US Congress in October, 2002, as Public Law No. 107-243, and it authorized the war in Iraq as it authorized Bush to use the US military, "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

So, rather than my attempting to guess in an effort to illustrate exactly why your tiny little mind is incorrect when you claim, "with Iraq, we were told a absolute lie," why don't you go through the AUMF and explain to me exactly which of the justifications for the authorization of force against Iraq is the lie of which you speak? And in doing so -- just to speed things up, because you know I'll ask you later -- provide your proof for why each of the items you identify is a lie.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

okie wrote:
Since when are businessmen and women excluded from being conservative?

They aren't. My point is that those individuals will put the interest of bussiness in conflict with the interest of the americna people.

T
K
O
[/quote]
I am going to address this one point, and thats it. You need to go back to school and learn how to spell to start off with. Then you need a major rethinking of your philosophy, which will probably take a life time, but you could shorten the process by running your own business, for at least 5 years or before you go broke, and you might come back here and talk intelligently.

In regard to the conflict between the interest of business and the American people, there is basically none, you don't have to buy anything from anybody that you don't want to, end of story. Business is based on supply and demand, and if you don't want it, they won't supply you. Business is busy supplying what the people want, thank goodness somebody is. You need to wake up every morning thanking your lucky stars for business and the people working for business and for you, that supplies you with pretty much everything you need to live, food, shelter, and clothing. It is government that is the problem that you need to start worrying about, as they will ram anything down your throat that they feel like if they can get the legislation through, and they will tax the bejeebers out of you until the cows come home.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
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. )

You also fail to answer my questions, so I really don't care what you do or don't call me. You choose not to participate when the heat is on. Don't pat yourself on the back.

T
K
O

Okay then give me another chance. Please restate a question that you posed to me that you hadn't already answered in your post? My intent is not to discourage honest debate here.

I asked what is conservative about what republicans promote?

T
K
O

IMO, in a nutshell, Republicans traditionally have promoted a constructionist view of the Constitution, smaller efficient and effective government, fiscal responsibility, strong defense, preservation of traditional values that have served the country well, individual responsibility and accountablility, free trade, and as little regulation and mandates as reasonable in order to promote initiative, innovation, and pursuit of excellence.

All arise out of solidly conservative values.

It has been when Republicans abandoned these principles in practice that the GOP got in trouble with its base.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

It has been when Republicans abandoned these principles in practice that the GOP got in trouble with its base.

And why don't American conservatives form a (new) 'real' conservative party or split from the GOP, if that is true?

I mean if a party doesn't do what the base wants - either elect a new party establishment or form a new party.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

It has been when Republicans abandoned these principles in practice that the GOP got in trouble with its base.

And why don't American conservatives form a (new) 'real' conservative party or split from the GOP, if that is true?

That's a good question. The two party system is pretty deeply entrenched in the national psyche which makes it really hard for a new party to gain much traction. Every now and then a Green Party candidate does get elected to local or state office, but that is rare. The Ross Perot phenomenon was the closest thing we've had to a truly new movement in more than well over a Century and might have succeeded if he hadn't gone off the deep end.

Many of us though still remember the GOP revolution of 1994 when a dedicated 'freshman class' of idealistic young Republicans, spearheaded by Newt Gingrich, inspired faith, pride and hope in the GOP and I guess we're hoping for that to happen again.

0 Replies

I'm not talking about a completely new party with a new idiology like the Greens were.

If a majority of members of the GOP thinks that their leaders don't follow what the the basis wants (why doesn't the basis elect leaders according to their wishes or deselect them?), a new conservative party should get support from this basis. More than the GOP.

The [UK] Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party - the UK is/was a two-party nation as well - were rather unimportant, the Social Democratic Party nearly unknown. Now - after merging to the Liberal Democrats - this new party is the third party in Parliament.

The disagreement of the GOP-basis with its leaders can't thaaat big, I think, regarding how things still go on.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I am going to address this one point, and thats it. You need to go back to school and learn how to spell to start off with.

He's still in school, okie ... getting ready to graduate, and head off into the real world. And he's somehow managed to convince himself that spelling is a real world elective, and he won't need to spell well in order to succeed in his chosen profession (whatever that may be). I have mentioned his atrocious spelling to him to try and convince him he ought to work on that important communication skill. As you say, it appears he will just have to learn the tough lessons when the safety net of college life is no longer underneath him.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I'm not talking about a completely new party with a new idiology like the Greens were.

If a majority of members of the GOP thinks that their leaders don't follow what the the basis wants (why doesn't the basis elect leaders according to their wishes or deselect them?), a new conservative party should get support from this basis. More than the GOP.

The [UK] Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party - the UK is/was a two-party nation as well - were rather unimportant, the Social Democratic Party nearly unknown. Now - after merging to the Liberal Democrats - this new party is the third party in Parliament.

The disagreement of the GOP-basis with its leaders can't thaaat big, I think, regarding how things still go on.

Well I'll let them know how you think they should do it, Walter. I'm sure they'll be grateful for the advice. (Just kidding) :wink:

The politics of Britain still included a Monarchy with clout along with Parliament and still afforded considerable power to the Church of England at the time the USA was hammering out their Democratric Republic. The Archbishop of Canterbury had as much real power as does the President of the United States now. Breaking with those traditions may or may not make it psychologically easier to break with other traditions in the UK now, I don't know. I don't live there.

But weren't the Liberal Democrats formed like just 20 years ago? It wasn't long after that when Ross Perot was stirring up the folks to create a viable third party here. Again he almost succeeded. But when he wigged out on us, there was no strong leadership to step up to the plate and provide focus for the movement to keep going.

U.S. politics can be tough and hard and, since traditional values of honor and fairness were pretty well thrown out in the cultural revolution of the 60's, it has been extremely difficult to raise up new champions. Now it is not only acceptable to be tough but it is also acceptable to be cruel and viscious to take down a public figure you don't like here.

It takes a brave soul willing to subject himself/herself to that. And it really takes a brave soul willing to forego the protection, cover, and funding provided by the party machine and go it alone. Most do not wish to subject themselves, much less their families and associates, to such scrutiny and certain personal attacks.

So, we hope our current leaders will see the light and clean up their act. Or maybe on down the line another charismatic leader who can financially afford to take the risk will step up to the plate and we will have a new political party.

This is America. Anything is possible.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The politics of Britain still included a Monarchy with clout along with Parliament and still afforded considerable power to the Church of England at the time the USA was hammering out their Democratric Republic. The Archbishop of Canterbury had as much real power as does the President of the United States now. Breaking with those traditions may or may not make it psychologically easier to break with other traditions in the UK now, I don't know. I don't live there.

Well, and I can't see why that should hinder - or not - to form a new party in the USA ...

Foxfyre wrote:

But weren't the Liberal Democrats formed like just 20 years ago?

Yes. In 1988 was the merger of the Liberal Party with the Social Democratic Party.
Both parties existed before - the Liberals being one of the only two for centuries ...

But if you really are stuck in those (two party) tradtions, and if the GOP's base really is so unhappy with the not-conservative politics of its leadership (not that I doubt such!) - why don't you just elect a new, different leadership which is in accordance with the member's opinions?

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

But if you really are stuck in those (two party) tradtions, and if the GOP's base really is so unhappy with the not-conservative politics of its leadership (not that I doubt such!) - why don't you just elect a new, different leadership which is in accordance with the member's opinions?

I thought I explained that pretty well. Please reread my immediately preceding post and see if I didn't.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

It has been when Republicans abandoned these principles in practice that the GOP got in trouble with its base.

And why don't American conservatives form a (new) 'real' conservative party or split from the GOP, if that is true?

I mean if a party doesn't do what the base wants - either elect a new party establishment or form a new party.

The Dems would love to split the Republican party, making both the 'old' GOP and the new offshoot relatively powerless.

Instead, you are more likely to see after the 2008 election cycle a fractured Democratic party.

Black voters will be very upset if Obama doesn't get the nomination and many of them may never vote Democratic again. They believe it's 'their turn' to have a President; and this entitlement mentality will cause huge losses of Democratic support when it is left disappointed -- especially if the beneficiary is a white man, which it could be.

Conservative Democrats (yes there are some) will leave the party if Commisar Hilly is elected. They don't want their party being used to nationalize large parts of the US economy (health care) and don't want a CiC that uses the military as a social experiment, as the Clintons did in the '90s. They especially don't want a CiC who sits idly by as America is attacked by terrorists, as Billy did (4 times) in the '90s.

0 Replies

Okay. But my question was more about the GOP since Foxfyre wrote that when the Republicans abandoned the conservative principles in practice t the GOP got in trouble with its base.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Okay. But my question was more about the GOP since Foxfyre wrote that when the Republicans abandoned the conservative principles in practice t the GOP got in trouble with its base.

No, your question was why Conservatives unhappy with the GOP don't elect new (different) leaders and form a new party.

Specifically you said

Quote:

If a majority of members of the GOP thinks that their leaders don't follow what the the basis wants (why doesn't the basis elect leaders according to their wishes or deselect them?), a new conservative party should get support from this basis. More than the GOP.

And it was this that I addressed including why new leadership is not so easily elected. You are free to agree or disagree with my answer, but I did provide you one in some detail.

All conservatives here are not members of the GOP nor are all members of the GOP conservative. Nor do all conservatives agree on all issues here. Raising up new leaders to effect a viable 3rd party or even new leaders for the GOP is not at all as simple as you seem to think.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know