AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@BigTexN,

BigTexN wrote:

Quote:
Ah, you were spouting bullshit. Pretty much what I had assumed.

Come now Cyclo, you are aware of other types of warfare besides military engagements aren't you?

If not, Google some...educate yourself!

Why don't you specifically tell us what actions we took that caused the Russian economy to collapse? In detail.

See, if you want to assign your Saint credit for something, you ought to have some proof of it.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

The reason is that the ONLY reason the Democrats went along with Reagan's defense build up and research into SDI was because Reagan agreed to go along with THEM in more social spending geared to endear them to their increasingly government-dependent constituents. It was a pure ideologically motivated trade off.

Now the MAC mind can understand that concept. I wonder if it is possible for a MAL to at least understand that point of view sufficiently to acknowledge it whether or not he or she agrees with it?

(P.S. I don't think any one of us thought that was the ONLY reason the Soviet Union collapsed. I do think it was a huge reason that the collapse occurred when it did however; otherwise I believe most objective analysts of that period agree that the USSR would have held on a lot longer.)

I've been through all that acronym nonsense before with people involved in this thread...and all you get is bullshit. So if you actually are looking for the take of one of those acronym thingys...you gotta ask one of them. I am not one of any of them.

Under any circumstances...if you are saying that Reagan went to bed with Satan...shame on him. He mortgaged our nation...in order to do what??? Destroy another country's economy???

We probably present a greater danger to the world than the old Soviet Union did.

Almost any objective analysis indicates that the Soviet Union was going to fall. communism the way they were abusing it was sapping their strength...much the way capitalism the way we are abusing it is sapping ours.

So...your hero tripled our national debt in order to look the hero. We shoulda given him White Horse One...and a big white Stetson...and maybe we could have saved our country from the downward spiral he, almost single handedly, fashioned.

Or we can say that the Democrats were responsible for the debt...and the debt was the reason the Soviets spent themselves into extinction...then the accolades belong to the Democrats...not Reagan.

2 Replies

George Orwell's NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR constituted a prescient warning to humanity about the dangers of a collectivist government (e.g., socialist or communist). I post it below with "the Party" equal to Obama’s Party, and "Winston" equal to all who are MALs (Modern American Liberals).

George Orwell wrote:

____________________________________________________________________________________
http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/
Part III, Chapter II,
Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party. That is the fact that you have got to relearn, Winston. It needs an act of self-destruction, an effort of the will. You must humble yourself before you can become sane.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

That's a damn good description of the Republican Party, you know, the "you're with us or a'gin us" folk.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

So...your hero tripled our national debt in order to look the hero. We shoulda given him White Horse One...and a big white Stetson...and maybe we could have saved our country from the downward spiral he, almost single handedly, fashioned.

Can't, he was already promoted out of that job Laughing

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Obama alleges he wants the federal government to accumulate additional trillions of dollars more in debt in order to buy government projects. Obama alleges doing this will increase or save jobs.

To pay for this, he will take money away from successful private business operators. But if Obama gets away with this, he will drastically reduce the number of jobs supported and added by existing successful private business operators. Furthermore, he will stifle the development of newly successful private business operators.

Not so fast. I am personally no longer as concerned with the short term bottom line, but when we were in business with partners (fellow shareholders), that quarterly bottom line took on elephantine proportions in importance. Quarterly profits also drive investment strategy--a bad quarter on a few bottom lines can send the market into a 500 point or more tailspin.

So we would be wise to be prepared for an early upward burst in some economic indicators. There will be a lot new jobs created early on when this bill is passed. Of course almost all will be government jobs that will further drain the economy rather than add to it along with a few private sector jobs taking advantage of government financed projects but those jobs go away just as soon as the job is completed.

This brief uptick won't be sustainable of course as would helping businesses that provide ongoing products and necessary services to grow and expand sustainable jobs.

There will also be a huge increase in work opportunities for lobbyists as there are still a few of those out there despite so many being hired or appointed into the Obama administration. Just as soon as the bill is passed, they will be descending on Washington to ensure that their clients get a slice of the pie.

Quote:

However, Obama via this accumulation of additional trillion dollars of debt will reduce the wealth of everyone--wealthy and poor. He will thereby equalize all wealth except the wealth of members of the federal government.

That which Obama promises to accomplish has never been accomplished by the government of a republic forcefully transferring wealth from those who have more to those who have less.

Yep, and out of his own mouth he admits we are going to see trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, among the usual prejudicial platitudes in your post, is this one:

Quote:

We probably present a greater danger to the world than the old Soviet Union did.

That is so skewed, idiotic, and pathologically implausible for any rational person to say given the millions upon millions of people murdered, imprisoned, enslaved and stripped of all human rights under the Soviet regime, for you to state that as even a possible probable identifies you with the MALs as almost nothing else could.

I do not have any authority to label you any more than you have authority to label me. But so far, I have not seen you post a single statement--I mean not ONE--that would suggest that you hold any point of view contrary to the core doctrines identified with the MALs.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Do you understand what "to the world" means, Foxy?

0 Replies

@okie,

The mind was already lost when Bush created the biggest deficit in the world in his eight years in office. He started a war that was unnecessary, and now costing us some $120 billion every year. That's money down the drain; it surely is not tax rebates, but huge deficits transferred to our children and grandchildren.

Central planning is not communism. Try again? (You goddam ignoramus!)

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

You quoted me saying:

Quote:

We probably present a greater danger to the world than the old Soviet Union did.

And then you pontificated:

Quote:

That is so skewed, idiotic, and pathologically implausible for any rational person to say given the millions upon millions of people murdered, imprisoned, enslaved and stripped of all human rights under the Soviet regime, for you to state that as even a possible probable identifies you with the MALs as almost nothing else could.

Really!

I think not.

We are much, much, much more powerful now than the old Soviet Union was at the very height of its power. We are as willing, perhaps even more willing, to throw our weight around than was the old Soviet Union. We are as likely to have a power hungry moron like George Bush at the control of our government as they were to have a miscreant at the the controls of their government. We have shown a willingness to make preemptive strikes against other counties. We've shown a willingness to meddle in the affairs of other countries. We have engineered the assassinations of leaders of other countries for our personal benefit. We are the only nation on Earth that has ever used the ultimate weapon of mass destruction on a civilian population.

We now engage in torture...rendition...and inappropriate incarceration.

You, yourself, have been insisting that we are operating with a dysfunctional government.

With all those ingredients...you think it inappropriate to suggest that we probably present a greater danger to the world than they did???

C'mon, Foxfyre.

Think that through a bit.

I think it is a given that we present a greater danger to the world...but at least I did ease the thought a bit.

Your reaction is absurd...disingenuous.

Quote:

I do not have any authority to label you any more than you have authority to label me. But so far, I have not seen you post a single statement--I mean not ONE--that would suggest that you hold any point of view contrary to the core doctrines identified with the MALs.

Is that so!

Well, I have. Sorry you haven't seen them. If I run across any of them...or if I make new ones...I'll be sure to call your attention to it.

I will acknowledge that although I am not a liberal...I do not mind nearly as much if I am mistaken as a liberal...as I have been on those few occasions where I was mistaken for a conservative. (Ugh...I hate to even think of those times.)

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Foxie just doesn't realize what we did to the Iraqis, and how the US intruded into their sovereignty with our preemptive war. Talk about the misuse of power.

And our administration called it "shock and awe." That pretty much covers it.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Foxie just doesn't realize what we did to the Iraqis, and how the US intruded into their sovereignty with our preemptive war. Talk about the misuse of power.

And our administration called it "shock and awe." That pretty much covers it.

Exactly, c.i.

The comment I made that got her so indignant was right on target.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I do not accept that we are a nation with a policy of torture, rendition, or inappropriate incarcertation. I know you lefties really REALLY want us to be that, but we are not that.

Our government is dysfunctional only when it seriously deviates from MAC principles; i.e. those that have made America the greatest, and among the most compassionate, most generous, and least imperialistic nations on Earth.

We are the only nation that gives our territories their freedom just because they request it. They don't even have to fight or lobby for it.

In the process of being the only nation in the world to use the ultimate weapon of mass destruction, we brought a cruel and bloody war to a rapid close and almost certainly saved tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of lives. And we effectively insured that it would not be acceptable to use in such a manner ever again. And then we expended much in blood and treasure to help rebuild our vanquished foes as we have always done; as we are doing in Iraq now with no hope of ever being properly compensated for that.

Among all the nations on Earth who do not threaten us with physical violence, not one fears us. It is a very very good thing that those who do threaten us and/or our friends also fear us.

The Soviet Union WAS a demonstrated danger to the world as was Nazi Germany and Imperialistic Japan and Iraq. Ask any of the hundreds of millions who were subjected to abject poverty, inhumanely restricted, starved, beaten, tortured, imprisoned, enslaved, and denied human rights within the USSR and by the hand or within those other places.

And then tell me what nation has that to fear from us? Has ever had that to fear from us?

Modern American Liberals (MALs) have to see their country in the worst possible light, I suppose, otherwise they cannot so easily condemn the values that have made it great.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

But I thought that Bush's deficits were the largest. Do you mean that Obama is going to give us larger deficits? I thought deficits (ESPECIALLY TRILLION DOLLAR ONES) were destructive to the economy. But,perhaps you can help me with something I need an answer for. Is it true that when a country runs up a deficit( which, of course, is added to the country's total debt) that a country has to pay interest on that debt?

And, when we say "a country" don't we mean the taxpayers in it?

1 Reply

@genoves,

Yeah. Its only those who happen to be members of the Republican party who can be condemned for deficits. When the Messiah or a Democratically controlled Congress proposes even bigger ones, well, that is apparently a noble act.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, that Reagan was solely responsible.
I DO however, believe that his policies and his refusal to back down to them were partly responsible for the collapse of the Soviets.

The difference between you and I is that you are unwilling (or unable) to even consider that possibility.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

Exactly, ican711nm, and if you don't mind I will add to that. Rational people are aware that Obamaism is much closer to Socialism than Republican ideology.

When Orwell wrote the great prophetic novel, "1984", he identified Oceania( the country in which Winston lived) in this manner--P. 303

"Newspeak was the official language of Oceania and had been devised to the ideological needs of Ingsoc, or ENGLISH SOCIALISM"

Obama is putting the US on a fast track to Socialism.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I do not accept that we are a nation with a policy of torture, rendition, or inappropriate incarcertation. I know you lefties really REALLY want us to be that, but we are not that.

Our government is dysfunctional only when it seriously deviates from MAC principles; i.e. those that have made America the greatest, and among the most compassionate, most generous, and least imperialistic nations on Earth.

We are the only nation that gives our territories their freedom just because they request it. They don't even have to fight or lobby for it.

In the process of being the only nation in the world to use the ultimate weapon of mass destruction, we brought a cruel and bloody war to a rapid close and almost certainly saved tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of lives. And we effectively insured that it would not be acceptable to use in such a manner ever again. And then we expended much in blood and treasure to help rebuild our vanquished foes as we have always done; as we are doing in Iraq now with no hope of ever being properly compensated for that or holding rights to any Iraqi property or means of production.

Among all the nations on Earth who do not threaten us with physical violence, not one fears us. It is a very very good thing that those who do threaten us and/or our friends also fear us.

The Soviet Union WAS a demonstrated danger to the world as was Nazi Germany and Imperialistic Japan and Iraq. Ask any of the hundreds of millions who were subjected to abject poverty, inhumanely restricted, starved, beaten, tortured, imprisoned, enslaved, and denied human rights within the USSR and by the hand or within those other places.

And then tell me what nation has that to fear from us? Has ever had that to fear from us?

Modern American Liberals (MALs) have to see their country in the worst possible light, I suppose, otherwise they cannot so easily condemn the values that have made it great.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Why is it that when we are discussing the tripling of the nations debt during the Reagan Administration...you and Foxfyre and the others on your side of the aisle...always blame the Democrats in congress for the spending...

I defy you to find even one time where I have done that!!
I have NEVER blamed the dems alone for the spending.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

None of the rest of us have either MM. But they have to keep saying things like that because they don't have any other ammunition to use to justify the irresponsible acts now proposed by the current Congress and our new President.

I can't think of a single one of us who has not criticized President Bush and the GOP Congress for their irresponsible excesses. But it isn't convenient to the MALs to acknowledge that.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know