AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Cycloptichorn,

Is it worth noting that, according to Gallup, his disapproval ratings have more than doubled?

0 Replies

@JamesMorrison,

JamesMorrison wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:"
Quote:
While we're at it, we should discuss the Constitutional authority that provides every citizen with the right to have--that is the right to have and not the right to work for to obtain:

1. A house or place to live
2. A living income commensurate with the amount others have to live on.
(At the very least establish what the proper amount is in order to be fair.)
3. A free education through college
4. Transportation
5. Health care
6. Access to information and technological advances
7. Cradle to grave security
8. Acceptance and approval by all.
9. Freedom from exposure to offensive concepts.

And once that constitutional authority is established, then we need to narrow down the clauses that specify how these rights are to be distributed and how they can be assigned to certain groups but not others. And if we are not in agreement that it is the God-given (or government dictated) right to have everything on the list, then we should identify the constitutional clauses that specify why one thing should be included on the list as a right while another should not."

Yes, this is exactly my point. But many Liberals and Progressives would not only agree to the above list of rights but demand that it be open ended. This, of course, is why I additionally asked: "If not then why not" Hoping that ,if that question were honestly answered, that answer would reveal that no matter how much the government played Robin Hood it would never have enough resources to sastisfy such demands. The beauty of the Constitution is its simplicity. It gives a few basic powers to the central government (few because they are enumerated) and the rest to the people and their more immediate local governments. To the people it grants a few and common sense rights. But the crux of the whole deal, as I see it, is that it grants individuals the OPPORTUNITY to pursue those items on the above list plus an infinte number more that the founders never even dreamed would exist.
JM

And I even left food off the list. Smile

But where is it written that only the Federal government can look to the needs of the people? Why can't we make the case that the states, counties, cities, neighborhoods, and the private sector are the most efficient and effective sources of necessary services?

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Do you really think anybody who will defend President Obama no matter what will read that list, Ican? Or will care what's on it?

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Is Cafferty talking about all those right wing extremists that make up about 30% of the country that have a favorable approval rating of Limbaugh, according to one poll? And although Limbaugh is a bit bombastic, his promises seem a little more solid than Obama's these days, Debra. At least, Limbaugh is not threatening to confiscate everything people have worked for to give it to somebody else, okay, Debra?

http://www.newsobserver.com/1573/story/1437968.html

Your uninformed opinions are not fact. Your conclusions aren't based on facts. Please provide proof that right wing extremists comprise 30 percent of our national population. Please provide proof that ALL right wing extremists approve of Limbaugh. And what "promises" has Limbaugh made to the people of this nation? He's not in charge of anything, so how can he follow through on any of these alleged promises?

I'm a working person. My husband is a working person. We own a successful business. Obama has NOT ONCE threatened to "confiscate" everything we have worked for in order to give it to somebody else. So NO--what you say is NOT okay because you're lying. Spreading lies is wrong.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Foxie, You really didn't understand my above post did you? I said "you never use ad hominems..."

We all understand you are the intellectual superwoman on these threads, and must continually try to diminish everybody else with your insights and wit.

The funny thing is you are the one who usually ends up chasing your own tail.

Concise, accurate, and witty assessment of a self-proclaimed "know it all" who has mastered the art of condescension.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Re: cicerone imposter (Post 3599300)

You don't understand. I am putting YOU on ignore if you keep this up. I would be ever EVER so grateful if you would put ME on ignore. Would you do me that kindness? Just one little kindness? I bet you've got it in you. I'm asking you nicely in a polite way to please do that.

Apologies to the thread. I HATE myself when I get dragged into one of these things, and I wish I hadn't today. But I'm going to go have a tall cool something , compose myself, and promise still once again:

I will not feed the trolls, argue with idiots, or engage in exercises of futility.

She just called cicerone imposter a troll and an idiot. Yet, she claims that she never uses ad hominems.

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

That's what I said, "Foxie never uses ad hominems." She still doesn't "get it." LOL

0 Replies

It seems to me that the rank and file Republican is a dupe for the super-wealthy of this country. The latter have no worries, and can't run out of money and resouces. But the former, who feel that the poor and disabled should just drop dead (and keep quiet about it), are against any govt. safety net. However, the Rep suddenly supports a good safety net for himself or herself, should he or she lose a job and savings, or good health. E.g., the Rep suddenly favors universal healthcare when he or she is without insurance, or the money to buy it.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Well I'm sure it probably does seem that way to you. However you came to that point of view, that line of bull is fed to the willing ad nauseum by the leftwing blogs and pundits. But Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Donald Trump--most of the really big money guys--all supported Obama in the last elections. And according to Roll Call's last analysis, the top 50 richest members of Congress were about evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. But can you back up your assumptions about Republicans or is that what you have been taught to believe?

Remember that the Democrats outnumber the Republicans substantially among the electorate--so far as we know--but the elections have been far closer than the voter registration would suggest for decades now.

Basically it all comes down to who benefits the most from whomever is in office. He who robs Peter to pay Paul will always have the support of Paul.

If Republicans are going to advance the politics of dependency, less responsibility, less accountability, fewer consequences for bad choises, etc., they might as well be Democrats.

I think that it isn't because Republicans are big money guys or selfish or stingy that they have been losing elections, but because they have been behaving too much like their liberal counterparts.

Quote:

February 3, 2009 12:00 AM
Republicans as Democrats
Too often, the GOP seems to think that being “inclusive” means selling out your principles.
By Thomas Sowell

A brief glimmer of sanity among congressional Republicans has been followed, almost immediately, by a return to the more traditional Washington insanity.

Last week, every single Republican in the House of Representatives voted against the Obama administration’s “stimulus” package"which had stimulated an orgy of runaway spending by congressional Democrats on everything from sports arenas to sexually transmitted diseases.

This was a rare smart move by the Republicans. If the Republicans had gone along, pursuing the will o’ the wisp of “bipartisanship,” then if the stimulus had by some miracle succeeded, it would have been a bill for which Democrats would claim credit at the next election.

On the other hand, if the stimulus failed"which seems far more likely"then it would be called a “bipartisan” bill, meaning that the Democrats would pay no price at the next election for a colossal failure.

Since President Bush started the “stimulus package” game, this was also an opportunity for congressional Republicans to cut themselves loose from the political baggage of the Bush administration’s unpopularity.

Within 24 hours, however, Republicans in the Senate came out with a plan to have the government fix mortgage interest rates at four percent"and use taxpayers’ money to cover the losses that lenders would otherwise sustain.

It is painfully obvious that government intervention in the housing markets over the past several years has been at the heart of the boom and bust that has led to a huge economic downturn.

It was not the market, but the government, that pushed for abandoning traditional standards for making mortgage loans. That was what got both borrowers and lenders way out on a limb"and set off economic shock waves when the limb broke.

The last time the Republicans pushed for price controls was during the Nixon administration. It was very popular in the short run. But, in the long run, even Nixon admitted in his memoirs that it was bad for the country.

Price controls have been tried and failed, in countries around the world, going all the way back to ancient Rome and Babylon. Moreover, politicians intervening in the economy is the hallmark of Democrats.

What principle separates the Republicans from the Democrats? If they are just Tweedledee and Tweedledum, then elections come down to personality and rhetoric. If that happens, you can bet the rent money on the Democrats winning.

Those considered to be the smart money among Republicans have been saying for some time that the party has to become more “inclusive” and jettison “outmoded” principles of the Reagan era. But no one has to pass an IQ test to be considered part of the smart money.

Looking at the track record, rather than the rhetoric, the smart money doesn’t look so smart.

When have the Republicans won big? When they stood for something and told the people what that something was.

Ronald Reagan was the classic example. But another example would be the stunning Republican victories in the 1994 Congressional elections, which put them in control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years.

Articulating the message of Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America” was a key to that historic victory.

Too many Republicans seem to think that being “inclusive” means selling out your principles to try to attract votes. It never seems to occur to them that you can attract a wider range of voters by explaining your principles in a way that more people understand.

That is precisely what Reagan did and what Gingrich did in 1994. Most Americans’ principles are closer to those of the Republicans than to those of the Democrats.

It is the only advantage the Republicans have. The Democrats have the media, the unions, the environmental extremists, and the tort lawyers on their side. Why should Republicans throw away their one advantage by becoming imitation Democrats?
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGZlNjhmZDg5ZTg5ODIzNWI2OGZhOGYzNjIxNjM0ODE=

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

okie wrote:

Is Cafferty talking about all those right wing extremists that make up about 30% of the country that have a favorable approval rating of Limbaugh, according to one poll? And although Limbaugh is a bit bombastic, his promises seem a little more solid than Obama's these days, Debra. At least, Limbaugh is not threatening to confiscate everything people have worked for to give it to somebody else, okay, Debra?

http://www.newsobserver.com/1573/story/1437968.html

Your uninformed opinions are not fact. Your conclusions aren't based on facts.

I can say the same of yours, Debra.

Quote:

Please provide proof that right wing extremists comprise 30 percent of our national population. Please provide proof that ALL right wing extremists approve of Limbaugh. And what "promises" has Limbaugh made to the people of this nation? He's not in charge of anything, so how can he follow through on any of these alleged promises?

Proof is not available, only estimates, and the poll at least provides an estimate. What do you have to refute it. I don't know if its 30%, but it is significant, nevertheless. You probably call me a right wing extremist, but I have never done one thing extreme, in fact, I have never aborted a baby, I have made a living all my life, never been on welfare, I have experienced being poor, I am still not rich and my house is old, but comfortable. I am law abiding, and I believe in obeying the law. I've had a few speeding tickets in my life time. And frankly, count me as one that is sick of bleeding heart liberals like you that want to tear the country apart with nonsense.

Quote:

I'm a working person. My husband is a working person. We own a successful business.

So what? So do we.

Quote:

Obama has NOT ONCE threatened to "confiscate" everything we have worked for in order to give it to somebody else. So NO--what you say is NOT okay because you're lying. Spreading lies is wrong.

Not everything, but he has threatened to "spread the wealth around." Now, that would not be too troubling if the guy had not hung around and befriended Marxists and seems to have a dislike of capitalistic endeavors. I notice now he is beginning to say things like, we need business, blah blah, maybe the guy will see the light, thats my take on it, okay. You are entitled to your opinion, but I think your opinion is wrong, basically, thats it. I think you are misguided, and just fit the liberal mindset.

Let us agree to disagree, but to label people like myself as extreme, you are dead wrong, and there are alot of good conservative law abiding decent citizens out here that believe in the constitution, and not only that, what it says. And that is why we oppose Obama and what his politics represent.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Thanks for your reply. However, virtually everything you say, as well as Sowell's piece, is a nonsequitur to my post.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Thanks for your reply. However, virtually everything you say, as well as Sowell's piece, is a nonsequitur to my post.

How were my comments or Sowell's piece non sequitur? I think both spoke directly to your point. Your point seemed to be that Republicans are the rich ones or perhaps that the super rich choose the Republican Party. I think you would have a hard time making that stick.

And I think your further point was that Republicans are hypocritical in saying one thing and then embracing that which they believe to be to their advantage. Both Sowell and I agreed.

If I misunderstood what you were saying, please restate it.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Thomas Sowell wrote:

Quote:

Too many Republicans seem to think that being “inclusive” means selling out your principles to try to attract votes. It never seems to occur to them that you can attract a wider range of voters by explaining your principles in a way that more people understand.

That's too funny for words; it's not only a non sequitur, but he assumes republicans are consistent in the way they vote their "principles." The republican party is so confused in their message and actions, hardly anybody can understand their principle message. Many now believe Limbaugh as their "leader," and he's not even an elected official. LOL

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Many now believe Limbaugh as their "leader," and he's not even an elected official. LOL

So, to be considered a "leader" in any party you have to be elected, is that what you are saying?

Who elected Howard Dean as head of the DNC?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Thomas Sowell wrote:
Quote:
Too many Republicans seem to think that being “inclusive” means selling out your principles to try to attract votes. It never seems to occur to them that you can attract a wider range of voters by explaining your principles in a way that more people understand.

That's too funny for words; it's not only a non sequitur, but he assumes republicans are consistent in the way they vote their "principles." The republican party is so confused in their message and actions, hardly anybody can understand their principle message. Many now believe Limbaugh as their "leader," and he's not even an elected official. LOL

It is true that the Republican Party does not seem to have somebody that clearly can lead the party and explain the principles in a strong way, and with Reaganesque qualities to bring people together in a non-divisive manner. One of the reasons is that the party is made up of a very large number of people that tend to believe in the principles of individualism and responsibility, but they may interpret differently in different issues, just how far to take that. Social conservatives do not see eye to eye with other types of conservatives, such as libertarian types or fiscal conservatives, etc. We need a strong voice to bring all of these sub-types of conservatives together, to coalesce them into one powerful voice in today's policital arena.

The one big hindrance to this problem is the liberal media, that skews, misrepresents, and demonizes all conservatives as much as they possibly can, in their willing cooperation with liberals to control the agenda and solidify their power.

I actually think there are leaders out there, but they are having trouble gaining traction, due to the opposition of liberal constituencies and the press, which forms a very formidable obstacle to anybody that shows promise. If Reagan were alive today, gaining momentum, the liberals would be spending every minute of every day, finding ways to undercut him and neutralize his potential.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mm, You are good at missing the whole point of that issue. Not my problem.

0 Replies

@okie,

You mention Reagan, who is very interesting. He was, indeed, a great communicator. However, he was also a senile moron who took direction from an astrologer, his billionaire handlers, Nancy, et al. He set the country on the course of huge deficits, and taught the public that taxes are evil and we can have it all for nothing. He was a disaster for the country.

2 Replies

@Advocate,

Reagan had something called common sense, something Obama doesn't seem to have.

By verbalizing such a weird opinion of Reagan, you, Advocate, have portrayed yourself as a pretty whacked out person. Reagan grew tax revenues tremendously, only problem was spending increased even faster. Reagan did not teach taxes were evil. You totally misunterstand what Reagan was about. Did you hear what you wanted to hear, or did you hear what Reagan said, there must be a big difference.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

You mention Reagan, who is very interesting. ...He set the country on the course of huge deficits, and taught the public that taxes are evil and we can have it all for nothing...

that does seem to be his legacy.

although he did outspend the ussr to the point of bankruptcy. but they were quickly losing ground anyway, so i guess he really only hastened the inevitable.

Quote:

taxes are evil and we can have it all for nothing...

that's the strangest thing about the reagan revolution. the die hards still go on about the "bright shining city on a hill", but damned if they are willing to put a new coat of paint on the ol' place once in a while.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Reagan had something called common sense, something Obama doesn't seem to have.

... Reagan grew tax revenues tremendously, only problem was spending increased even faster...

"the doctor was as brilliant as he was skilled. only problem was the patient died."

and another question... what was ronnie spending all that money on ? since he saw social services as a bunch of losers looking for a handout, pretty sure he wasn't doing any of that liberal stuff, right ?

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know