AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

From AP:

Quote:

"They would get eaten alive if they tried to cheat," said Alan Johnson, managing director of compensation consulting firm Johnson Associates. "No one is going to be that stupid."

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -John Kenneth Galbraith

Selfishness is wanting and taking what someone else has without earning it or working for it. That is the modern liberal, JTT.

3 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Quote:

Selfishness is wanting and taking what someone else has without earning it or working for it.

What are you trying to imply?

0 Replies

@okie,

Okie- Cicerone Imposter will never admit that the modern liberal has already defined himself. The modern liberal has his roots in Socialism and Communism.
Anyone who has studied History knows that. The modern liberal was really alive in the thirties. FDR's brain trust were all liberals-red hot liberals--and all of them were in love with the governmental system in the Soviet Union.

Here is what Amity Shlaes wrote in his great book --"The Forgotten Man"

P. 9.

Roosevelt retaliated( against the business class) by introducing a tax--the undistributed profits tax--to press the money out of them. Such forays prevented recovery and took the country into the depression within the Depression-1937 and 1938.

The way President Obama is going--imitating FDR--we will be in this downturn for seven or eight years as we were in the thirties.

You wrote--"Selfishness is wanting and taking what someone else has without earning and working for it"----correct---that is called INCOME REDISTRIBUTION--and the Democrats are masters at it.

I am sure you know why--

The vast majority of votes for Obama came from people who have literally nothing and want to take it from those who have worked all their lives to save.

It is a fact that nearly 50% of the American people pay little or no income tax.
Those sluggards will get taxcuts . How can they get tax cuts when they pay no taxes? They will get your hard earned money and mine, Okie. They must be stopped.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Thanks, JTT. I've been trying to find that line for a couple of years now...but have always come up short. It use to be a signature line for somebody over at Abuzz. I loved it...and since my search for it failed, I've tried to paraphrase it--with very limited results.

All the bullshit in this thread from both sides won't mean dick if Obama manages to get this economy back on track. Not an easy job at all.

If he does, however, the conservatives are toast for a long, long time...even though they will claim both that the problem was not really all that bad...and that a conservative apporach would have gotten the job done sooner.

In the meantime, if our country puts its fate back in the hands of the miscreants of the right...it deserves all the **** that will come its way.

But, the major thing the conservatives have going AGAINST them is that they JUST DON'T GET IT! And if the group of conservatives here represent the vanguard of the conservatives who recognize the need for change...and the vanguard of the cosmetic change itself...they are a lost cause.

I have no doubt Foxfyre truly means well here...and a couple of the others may as well...but truly, they do not have a clue about what actually is offensive about American conservatism.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

JTT wrote:

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -John Kenneth Galbraith

Selfishness is wanting and taking what someone else has without earning it or working for it. That is the modern liberal, JTT.

Selfishness denotes the precedence given in thought or deed to the self, i.e., self interest or self concern. It is the act of placing one's own needs or desires above the needs or desires of others. Selfishness is the opposite of altruism (Selflessness).

- Wikipedia

You are incorrect, Okie. What you describe is avarice or maybe greed.

'Selfish' sums up the Conservative viewpoint and goal perfectly. Primacy of the individual trumps all other concerns, especially when it comes to property and justice.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

I have no doubt Foxfyre truly means well here...and a couple of the others may as well...but truly, they do not have a clue about what actually is offensive about American conservatism.

At least we can define the terms and are willing to look at the concepts critically and objectively. We don't think that trash talking and just declaring an ideology 'offensive' without specifying what is offensive is useful in understanding it. At least we are attempting to identify and explore what we believe makes a people and a nation great and what works and what doesn't and the short and good intentions producing unintended negative consequences.

The peanut gallery offers unkind unsults directed at individuals on the thread--I've always considered such as that to be from the truly intellectually bankrupt and they are cheered on by the other intellectually bankrupt. They declare that people don't know what they are talking about, they say what is true is false, make grandiose pronouncements about things they obviously know nothing about and ignore when they are shown they are wrong, and offer little or nothing of substance to back up their opinions. They say modern conservatism/classical liberalism has not and does not work but refuse to provide a single example of where it has failed. And they all seem to be on the liberal side of the ledger. Interesting huh?

Disclaimer: I have as little regard for those on the 'conservative' side who are personally insulting or make outrageous statements too--it is just as tedious and annoying and I skip over those posts just like the others--but at least some of those can discuss why they hold the opinions they do. I'm not seeing the leftists offer much more than blind prejudice as a basis for their criticism of conservatism.

I would appreciate those with the intellectual ability to do so to actually discuss the concepts and provide a basis for why concepts are good or bad. The eight-year-old schoolyard syndrome of simply declaring the GOP and/or conservatives to be terrible people really really gets old. There are a plethora of other threads designed to bash Republicans and those promoting MAC views.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

I have no doubt Foxfyre truly means well here...and a couple of the others may as well...but truly, they do not have a clue about what actually is offensive about American conservatism.

At least we can define the terms and are willing to look at the concepts critically and objectively. We don't think that trash talking and just declaring an ideology 'offensive' without specifying what is offensive is useful in understanding it. At least we are attempting to identify and explore what we believe makes a people and a nation great and what works and what doesn't and the short and good intentions producing unintended negative consequences.

The peanut gallery offers unkind unsults directed at individuals on the thread--I've always considered such as that to be from the truly intellectually bankrupt and they are cheered on by the other intellectually bankrupt. They declare that people don't know what they are talking about, they say what is true is false, make grandiose pronouncements about things they obviously know nothing about and ignore when they are shown they are wrong, and offer little or nothing of substance to back up their opinions. They say modern conservatism/classical liberalism has not and does not work but refuse to provide a single example of where it has failed. And they all seem to be on the liberal side of the ledger. Interesting huh?

Disclaimer: I have as little regard for those on the 'conservative' side who are personally insulting or make outrageous statements too--it is just as tedious and annoying and I skip over those posts just like the others--but at least some of those can discuss why they hold the opinions they do. I'm not seeing the leftists offer much more than blind prejudice as a basis for their criticism of conservatism.

I would appreciate those with the intellectual ability to do so to actually discuss the concepts and provide a basis for why concepts are good or bad. The eight-year-old schoolyard syndrome of simply declaring the GOP and/or conservatives to be terrible people really really gets old. There are a plethora of other threads designed to bash Republicans and those promoting MAC views.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Every time someone points out a failure, you dodge and say that it's not a failure of Conservatism.

Nobody wants to engage in substantial argument with you, Fox, b/c you are not a rational actor in such discussions and apparently have a hard time following others' logical constructions, either unintentionally or intentionally twisting arguments until they have no meaning.

That's why most long-time posters here will engage with you - you're certainly not a troll or an abuser - but not stay engaged: your refusal to admit that you or your propositions have any failings quickly renders such arguments useless.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Your post is exactly what I was talking about Cyclop. Thanks for the illustration.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Your post is exactly what I was talking about Cyclop. Thanks for the illustration.

You also live in the saddle of your High Horse, and that's not a good place to be, either. Try some humility in the future and realize when others are offering constructive criticism, not insults.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Oh good one. Illustration #2. Keep them coming as they will surely come in handy later on. Smile

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

I give all benefit of the doubt unless they give me cause to suspect them.

Well, you sure was hell were awfully damn slow on the draw when it came to Bush and his band of criminals. You were there, here actually, starting threads re: Bush aftermath like it was possible to have been able to coax out something good about those jokers.

Sure speaks to your powers of discernment.

1 Reply

@genoves,

genoves wrote:

Quote:

Okie- Cicerone Imposter will never admit that the modern liberal has already defined himself. The modern liberal has his roots in Socialism and Communism.

Prove this claim? Not with your "personal" opinion, but by credible outside sources.

What is it with you guys? You make some claim on one thing or another, but refuse to provide the evidence once requested. All losers.

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

I would appreciate those with the intellectual ability to do so to actually discuss the concepts and provide a basis for why concepts are good or bad. The eight-year-old schoolyard syndrome of simply declaring the GOP and/or conservatives to be terrible people really really gets old. There are a plethora of other threads designed to bash Republicans and those promoting MAC views.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Regarding those powers of discernment, ... .

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

At least we can define the terms and are willing to look at the concepts critically and objectively. We don't think that trash talking and just declaring an ideology 'offensive' without specifying what is offensive is useful in understanding it. At least we are attempting to identify and explore what we believe makes a people and a nation great and what works and what doesn't and the short and good intentions producing unintended negative consequences.

The peanut gallery offers unkind unsults directed at individuals on the thread--I've always considered such as that to be from the truly intellectually bankrupt and they are cheered on by the other intellectually bankrupt. They declare that people don't know what they are talking about, they say what is true is false, make grandiose pronouncements about things they obviously know nothing about and ignore when they are shown they are wrong, and offer little or nothing of substance to back up their opinions. They say modern conservatism/classical liberalism has not and does not work but refuse to provide a single example of where it has failed. And they all seem to be on the liberal side of the ledger. Interesting huh?

Disclaimer: I have as little regard for those on the 'conservative' side who are personally insulting or make outrageous statements too--it is just as tedious and annoying and I skip over those posts just like the others--but at least some of those can discuss why they hold the opinions they do. I'm not seeing the leftists offer much more than blind prejudice as a basis for their criticism of conservatism.

I would appreciate those with the intellectual ability to do so to actually discuss the concepts and provide a basis for why concepts are good or bad. The eight-year-old schoolyard syndrome of simply declaring the GOP and/or conservatives to be terrible people really really gets old. There are a plethora of other threads designed to bash Republicans and those promoting MAC views.

Excellent argument...although I think the basic premise is way off base.

Your "We don't think that trash talking and just declaring an ideology 'offensive' without specifying..." is gratuituous, totally self-serving to the argument...and flat out wrong.

I've given many illustrations of why I find the ideology offensive.

You simply dismiss them.

Nothing wrong with that...I dismiss lots of what all the conservativse here say. But to suggest that because you dismiss them means that we haven't offered them...is, at best, disingenuous...and at worst, dishonest.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Exactly correct

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The following is an idea that many CALOPs and MALs (i.e., Contemporary American liberals or Progressives, and Modern American Liberals) allegedly support:

(6) Public leadership in protecting the environment from pollution and ensuring the conservation of resources;

Increasing America's dependence on foreign oil by limiting domestic oil drilling increases our dependence on foreign monopolies and on our own inefficient so-called green energy production. It does not ensure the conservation of resources. It only ensures whose other resources we use. So-called alternate energy sources like windmills and solar panels completely ignores their cost and the limited energy they can provide without significantly reducing the amount of space available for agriculture, parks, and homes. The resources consumed by the use of less efficient energy production and delivery systems expands resource consumption. It does not conserve or reduce resource consumption.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank writes

Quote:

I've given many illustrations of why I find the ideology offensive.

You simply dismiss them.

Okay, perhaps I again missed your comments in one of those insulting or idiotic barrages from the peanut gallery that I usually just skim over. (This was perhaps in the same spirit that you did not comment on my previous post addressed to you.) I acknowledge that my doing that may appear arrogant to some, but it honestly is the only way I can enjoy A2K and I rather insist on enjoying this if I'm going to do it.

Please give me one of those illustrations again that specifically shows why you thnk MAC ideology is offensive.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know