AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

from Mickey Edwards (see above post)

Quote:

Dick Cheney's Error
It's Government By the People

By Mickey Edwards
Saturday, March 22, 2008; Page A13

For at least six years, as I've become increasingly frustrated by the Bush administration's repeated betrayal of constitutional -- and conservative -- principles, I have defended Vice President Cheney, a man I've known for decades and with whom I served and made common cause in Congress. No longer...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR2008032102482.html

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
You making my point. A lies were told. Nothing about what you posted was ever validated.

"...possible links..."
"...believed to be linked to..."
"...U.S. Government clearly knows..."
"...several clues suggesting, though not proving..."
"...no evidence Saddam Hussein knew about his visit..."
"...no evidence of involvement..."

Just admit it and be done with it. The american people were sold a phoney war on the premise of WMDs and Terrorism.

T
K
O

Prove they were lies. You said it, now prove it.

Very simply Tico, the proof is simply that none of it was ever validated. All the claims of connections, and weapons. All bogus. Like I said before, the burden is not on me to prove those claims false, it's on the people who made the claims to PROVE THEM TRUE. They failed.

We searched, no WMDs.
We found out Saddam was an enemy of Osama because Saddam put tanks on holy land, not buddies.

They were lies.
K
O

Wrong, that is not the burden here. The point about whether any WMDs have been found in Iraq can be fairly debated. The point about whether there were any al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded can also be fairly debated. Thus, we can debate whether or not those statements were true, or not, at the time they were uttered. But a lie is certainly not the same as a statement that merely turns out to be false, unless this is some special definition of your own invention. You don't get to make up your own definitions for words, here.

And it isn't my burden to prove they were lies. You made the assertion, and you can either back it up and prove it, or you cannot. And I submit you cannot, and that is the reason you will not try.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

As this thread subject infers, the Republican brand is now in some substantial jeopardy.

Actually, the thread title is about conservatism, not the Republican party.

Do you understand the difference?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

blatham wrote:
As this thread subject infers, the Republican brand is now in some substantial jeopardy.

Actually, the thread title is about conservatism, not the Republican party.

Do you understand the difference?

Indeed I do. So perhaps you need to get clear on what the term 'inference' means.

0 Replies

One cannot 'infer' that all, or even most, conservatives are Republicans.

Where did you get that idea?

Further, the thread title infers no such thing as 'substantial jeopardy', either about conservatism or about the Republican party.

You seem to be reading between lines that aren't there.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
You making my point. A lies were told. Nothing about what you posted was ever validated.

"...possible links..."
"...believed to be linked to..."
"...U.S. Government clearly knows..."
"...several clues suggesting, though not proving..."
"...no evidence Saddam Hussein knew about his visit..."
"...no evidence of involvement..."

Just admit it and be done with it. The american people were sold a phoney war on the premise of WMDs and Terrorism.

T
K
O

Prove they were lies. You said it, now prove it.

Very simply Tico, the proof is simply that none of it was ever validated. All the claims of connections, and weapons. All bogus. Like I said before, the burden is not on me to prove those claims false, it's on the people who made the claims to PROVE THEM TRUE. They failed.

We searched, no WMDs.
We found out Saddam was an enemy of Osama because Saddam put tanks on holy land, not buddies.

They were lies.
K
O

Wrong, that is not the burden here. The point about whether any WMDs have been found in Iraq can be fairly debated. The point about whether there were any al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded can also be fairly debated. Thus, we can debate whether or not those statements were true, or not, at the time they were uttered. But a lie is certainly not the same as a statement that merely turns out to be false, unless this is some special definition of your own invention. You don't get to make up your own definitions for words, here.

And it isn't my burden to prove they were lies. You made the assertion, and you can either back it up and prove it, or you cannot. And I submit you cannot, and that is the reason you will not try.

DeistTKO

Carry on with the fellow if you enjoy such activity but I'm afraid you'll find that facts and valid argumentation will be trumped by his partisan loyalties.

The majority of Americans are now in the company of the majority of citizens everywhere else in concluding that the Bush administration deceived the country into war. What Tico thinks (or says) is irrelevant.

The majority of Americans, some 60 - 70%, now want America out of Iraq. Very close to the same percentage, Iraqi citizens also want America out of Iraq. Again, what Tico thinks or says is irrelevant.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Wrong, that is not the burden here.

You're playing checkers and the world is playing chess. No matter how hard you try, I'm not going to king you. You're not playing by the rules, and it makes you look dumb.

Ticomaya wrote:

The point about whether any WMDs have been found in Iraq can be fairly debated.

I'd love to hear you try.

Ticomaya wrote:

The point about whether there were any al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded can also be fairly debated.

I'd love to hear you try.

Additionally, you'd have to prove that te overnment was aware of there presence to support everything else in the WHEREAS statements.

Ticomaya wrote:

And it isn't my burden to prove they were lies.

Certainly not. It's the administration's. They failed. No reason that you should have to share that shame. Why you are sticking up for them is beyond me.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Wrong, that is not the burden here.

You're playing checkers and the world is playing chess. No matter how hard you try, I'm not going to king you. You're not playing by the rules, and it makes you look dumb.

Ticomaya wrote:

The point about whether any WMDs have been found in Iraq can be fairly debated.

I'd love to hear you try.

Ticomaya wrote:

The point about whether there were any al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded can also be fairly debated.

I'd love to hear you try.

Additionally, you'd have to prove that te overnment was aware of there presence to support everything else in the WHEREAS statements.

Ticomaya wrote:

And it isn't my burden to prove they were lies.

Certainly not. It's the administration's. They failed. No reason that you should have to share that shame. Why you are sticking up for them is beyond me.

T
K
O

0 Replies

real life wrote:

blatham wrote:
As this thread subject infers, the Republican brand is now in some substantial jeopardy.

Actually, the thread title is about conservatism, not the Republican party.

Do you understand the difference?

I have come to believe that there are self-presumed intellectuals who seem incapable of seeing more than one point of view and are compulsive obsessive in denigrating anybody who doesn't share their own peculiar view of the world. I used to think this was intentional or deliberately dishonest or maybe just self-righteously mean, but I have come to believe that it is simply ingrained in some people's DNA and they can't help it. As one political pundit has suggested: "Liberalism is a mental disorder."

Those who suffer from it are like those on the global warming thread who cannot (or will not)discern the difference between global warming and anthropogenic global warming and how those two things might call for different policy decisions.

They are like those on the intelligent design thread who cannot (or will not) discern between 'promotion' and 'acknowledgment' of a point of view or who think there can be no difference between Biblical Creationism and Intelligent Design.

They are like those on the Iraq thread who cannot (or will not) distinguish between reality and intent and/or cannot separate what is from what was.

And here, despite giving lip service to semantics, they cannot (or will not) distinguish between Republican and modern Conservatives, nor are they willing to separate those two things in the discussion.

Of course I think that is because they are incapable of having a reasoned discussion on a principle or concept. Their disability seems to force them to find somebody to blame, to accuse, to denigrate, to look down their noses at. Evidence of the malady has crept into almost every aspect of our culture in recent decades and has infected our policies, politics, curriculum, media, expressions, and conversations.

I'm an eternal optimist. I know there is a cure. We just have to keep looking for it.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Quote:

One cannot 'infer' that all, or even most, conservatives are Republicans.

Where did you get that idea?

Really? Within which political affiliation do we find most american 'conservatives'? The Green Party, perhaps?

Quote:

Further, the thread title infers no such thing as 'substantial jeopardy', either about conservatism or about the Republican party.

You seem to be reading between lines that aren't there.

Why bother to write a post which doesn't have the courage to be honest? Foxfire, who wrote that title, has as her first and explanatory post...

Quote:

It has been widely speculated that President Bush and the GOP fell into widespread disfavor and lost majority control of Congress when they abandoned basic conservative principles.

It is a given that most American liberals didn't like President Bush to begin with and didn't vote for Republicans for Congress either. Therefore, it can be concluded that the GOP lost power when it violated those issues most important to their base generally imbedded in an ideology known as modern Conservatism.

As a replacement for the "Bush aftermath" thread which is drawing to a close, perhaps this thread could be a place where we could discuss where conservatives got it right, where we went wrong, what we need to do to regain the confidence of the Conservative base, and other GOP/Conservative issues.

Hardly a rousing trumpet blast for Republican/conservative prospects in November (and beyond). And if you want to pretend that the RNC and movement leaders are not well aware of those prospects, then your post is completely without rational purpose except as a schoolyard 'my daddy can beat up your daddy' hollow boast.

At least foxfire has the gumption to lay the problem out. What a pity, though, that she goes a very long way to thwarting her own presumed goal of honest reflection on what 'went wrong' by framing this question so as to place blame on anything other than the extremities of the version of 'conservatism' she believes in...a version she herself refers to above as 'modern' but which she then goes on to insist is really traditional 'conservatism'. And what a pity that it doesn't matter much if at all to her who the majority of republican/conservative voters supported in the primaries. And what a pity that it doesn't matter what the broad consensus is re values or policies across all american voters, her version of proper 'conservatism' is never a fundamental problem in Republican/conservative decline. The audience is walking out and her solution is to continue doing exactly what she's been doing but more of it and louder.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

...And here, despite giving lip service to semantics, they cannot (or will not) distinguish between Republican and modern Conservatives, nor are they willing to separate those two things in the discussion...

That's a load of crap. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You can's simultaneously say that modern republicans are not conservatives, AND say that things like the war in Iraq is based on good conservative philosophy. Which is it?

T
K
O

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

real life wrote:
blatham wrote:
As this thread subject infers, the Republican brand is now in some substantial jeopardy.

Actually, the thread title is about conservatism, not the Republican party.

Do you understand the difference?

I have come to believe that there are self-presumed intellectuals who seem incapable of seeing more than one point of view and are compulsive obsessive in denigrating anybody who doesn't share their own peculiar view of the world. I used to think this was intentional or deliberately dishonest or maybe just self-righteously mean, but I have come to believe that it is simply ingrained in some people's DNA and they can't help it. As one political pundit has suggested: "Liberalism is a mental disorder."

Those who suffer from it are like those on the global warming thread who cannot (or will not)discern the difference between global warming and anthropogenic global warming and how those two things might call for different policy decisions.

They are like those on the intelligent design thread who cannot (or will not) discern between 'promotion' and 'acknowledgment' of a point of view or who think there can be no difference between Biblical Creationism and Intelligent Design.

They are like those on the Iraq thread who cannot (or will not) distinguish between reality and intent and/or cannot separate what is from what was.

And here, despite giving lip service to semantics, they cannot (or will not) distinguish between Republican and modern Conservatives, nor are they willing to separate those two things in the discussion.

Of course I think that is because they are incapable of having a reasoned discussion on a principle or concept. Their disability seems to force them to find somebody to blame, to accuse, to denigrate, to look down their noses at. Evidence of the malady has crept into almost every aspect of our culture in recent decades and has infected our policies, politics, curriculum, media, expressions, and conversations.

I'm an eternal optimist. I know there is a cure. We just have to keep looking for it.

Why yes, of course,the only explanation for "liberal ideas" must be a genetic defect, a disability against sustained rational thought. Only conservatives have normal healthy genes and anyone who has other opinions must be a deviant. The fact that I find fatal flaws i both conservative and liberal philosophies indicates that I am double-witched in the spiral helix of both DNA and RNA. Perhaps the "Cure" for liberalism is a pre-frontal lobatomy or perhaps simple shock therapy along with specific drugs.

All this time I have considered both conservatism and liberalism to be valuable cohorts for the establishment of sound governance but, alas, foxfyre has seen the light and shared it so I now understand that any thought inconsistent with her is a dis-ease, a defect in the brain.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
...And here, despite giving lip service to semantics, they cannot (or will not) distinguish between Republican and modern Conservatives, nor are they willing to separate those two things in the discussion...

That's a load of crap. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You can's simultaneously say that modern republicans are not conservatives, AND say that things like the war in Iraq is based on good conservative philosophy. Which is it?

T
K
O

See this is exactly what I was saying with what you describe as 'a load of crap'.

I didn't say anything about modern Republicans not being conservatives in the post you are addressing, nor did I say anything that could be interpreted that the war in Iraq being based on good conservative philosophy. I said something quite different from that. But through a 'liberal filter' you may be among those who cannot see or understand what is said, but you translate it into something totally different. That was the whole point of my post.

But thanks for providing an excellent example to confirm what I said. Smile

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

DeistTKO

Carry on with the fellow if you enjoy such activity but I'm afraid you'll find that facts and valid argumentation will be trumped by his partisan loyalties.

The majority of Americans are now in the company of the majority of citizens everywhere else in concluding that the Bush administration deceived the country into war. What Tico thinks (or says) is irrelevant.

The majority of Americans, some 60 - 70%, now want America out of Iraq. Very close to the same percentage, Iraqi citizens also want America out of Iraq. Again, what Tico thinks or says is irrelevant.

I hadn't realized you trudged along with the sheep, Bernie. Laughing

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

blatham wrote:
DeistTKO

Carry on with the fellow if you enjoy such activity but I'm afraid you'll find that facts and valid argumentation will be trumped by his partisan loyalties.

The majority of Americans are now in the company of the majority of citizens everywhere else in concluding that the Bush administration deceived the country into war. What Tico thinks (or says) is irrelevant.

The majority of Americans, some 60 - 70%, now want America out of Iraq. Very close to the same percentage, Iraqi citizens also want America out of Iraq. Again, what Tico thinks or says is irrelevant.

I hadn't realized you trudged along with the sheep, Bernie.

But that's a logically necessary premise, given that I've made your acquaintance.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Why yes, of course,the only explanation for "liberal ideas" must be a genetic defect, a disability against sustained rational thought. Only conservatives have normal healthy genes and anyone who has other opinions must be a deviant. The fact that I find fatal flaws i both conservative and liberal philosophies indicates that I am double-witched in the spiral helix of both DNA and RNA. Perhaps the "Cure" for liberalism is a pre-frontal lobatomy or perhaps simple shock therapy along with specific drugs.

All this time I have considered both conservatism and liberalism to be valuable cohorts for the establishment of sound governance but, alas, foxfyre has seen the light and shared it so I now understand that any thought inconsistent with her is a dis-ease, a defect in the brain.

I'm going to take a huge risk and respond to this Dys. You illustrate the point I was making just as TKO did. Rather than seeing what I was at least trying to say, along with specific examples to illustrate it, you twist it into a personal affront in a manner I never stated nor intended.

I hope that it is truly a disability that causes people to be unable to focus on any point of view other than their own prejudicial view of the world. I hope it is a mental disorder that prevents people from articulating a rationale for a point of view and causes them to compensate for that by saying hateful things to or about others. Otherwise I would have to assign such a phenomenon to intentional dishonesty and/or utter stupidity or ignorance or a general propensity to hate/hurt others as much as possible.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I'm going to take a huge risk and respond to this Dys.

Agreed. It is a risk. When you rattle his cage, there is no telling what comes forth.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I'm going to take a huge risk and respond to this Dys.

Agreed. It is a risk. When you rattle his cage, there is no telling what comes forth.

Well past experience makes me wary.

But his is another illustration of the point I was making. I didn't say anything about 'liberal ideas' in my post, but that is apparently what he thought I was talking about. The ones I was addressing can't seem to recognize what the subject is.

0 Replies

Well, of course it's always an error to respond to my posts foxfyre. It's just as much of an error when okie does as well. I suggest you return to your previous position of never responding to anything I post and suggest that okie do the same. I, of course, will continue to respond to both you and okie because i am mentally defective, intentionally dishonest, utterly stupid and have a general propensity to hate/hurt others as much as possible. After all, I am a liberal.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Well, of course it's always an error to respond to my posts foxfyre. It's just as much of an error when okie does as well. I suggest you return to your previous position of never responding to anything I post and suggest that okie do the same. I, of course, will continue to respond to both you and okie because i am mentally defective, intentionally dishonest, utterly stupid and have a general propensity to hate/hurt others as much as possible. After all, I am a liberal.

I'll repeat just in case you missed it:

Well past experience makes me wary.

But his (Dys) is another illustration of the point I was making. I didn't say anything about 'liberal ideas' in my post, but that is apparently what he thought I was talking about. The ones I was addressing can't seem to recognize what the subject is.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know