AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

nimh wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
nimh wrote:
You really dont see the difference between attacking a politician for what you consider him to have done, and smearing half the country as traitors, "plain and simple", for supporting a politician you don't agree with?

Sure I see a difference. But I don't know that CJ did that unless he explicitly confirms your interpretation of what he said. Nor do you know that.

Quote:
CJ didnt talk about Obama - he called Obama's supporters, collectively, traitors and enemies of the USA.

That's what you presume that he said. I still have not heard him confirm that is the intent of what he said.

What are you talking about?

CJ wrote: "Obama is a disgrace. His supporters are enemies of the United States. It's treason pure and simple."

What is there to confirm here? It's plain-spoken English. He called Obama's supporters enemies of the USA. And you were OK with that.

The subject of the post was the multi billion bailout. Obama has supported that. I can easily assume that CJ was still referring to that with the Obama's supporters line. In his opinion, those who support that kind of insane and irresponsible spending are no friend to the United States. The opposite of 'friend' is 'enemy'. Can you honestly say that you have not accused Bush supporters of worse when they have supported specific issues which you abhor?

The fact that you let those of like mind with you say virtually anything however crude, unkind, or ugly to or about anybody so long as you presumably agree with them suggests that you are holding CJ to a different standard. Are you?

Wow. I'm telling ya, you really ought to hold up a mirror and see how you engage in exactly the same behaviors you accuse others of.

It's quite instructive really to see how we are all much more tolerant of outbursts and craziness when we agree with the person on other issues.

I actually think Joe's question was a really, really good one, given the discussion that has followed.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

I actually think Joe's question was a really, really good one, given the discussion that has followed.

What is more significant is that neither Fox nor Ican has actually addressed the burden of the question. Ican has simply ignored it. Fox has attempted to divert it into a discussion of the behavior of specific members here.

But Joe was asking about modern American conservatives. His question is much more general than just the antics of individual members at this site. The question was, it appeared to me, whether or not those calling themselves conservatives in contemporary America are willing to embrace such a wide and divergent range of views among those calling themselves conservatives.

Fox has dodged the issue entirely. Joe, of course, can correct me if i have not correctly stated the case.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

These "same" people who support right to life also support killing abortion doctors who live within the laws of this country.

BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I support the right to life, and I DO NOT support killing anyone who disagrees with me.
For you to paint with such a large brush is beneath you, and you know it.
You condemn those on the right for making such sweeping generalities (and you should) then you turn around and do the same thing yourself.

Those that support the killing of doctors or anyone else involved in LEGAL activities are a tiny fringe element, just like the left has its own fringe element.
Are you willing to say that the fringe element speaks for you?

Quote:

During the campaign last year, a conservative shouted "kill him" when talking about Obama.

This might be true, I dont know.
Do you have any documentation to back up this claim?
And if it is true, I will condemn that also.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

The idea that Obama is responsible for the current financial crisis belongs on the laugher curve as well as those who continue to blame Obama for the problems businesses are now having - all around the world.

Some posters here don't know the difference between who or what to blame, so they assign all the problems to Obama - who has been in office for only five months. They are unable to think of any problems associated with Bush's eight years in office to the current problems. Go figure.

The problem with your argument is a simple one.
No matter what Bush did, he is no longer the President.
Once Obama signed his stimulus plans, once he ok'ed the giving of money to the auto industry, to the mortgage industry, and to everyone and anyone else looking for a federal bailout, it became his problem.
You cannot blame Bush for any of the decisions Obama has made, because Obama is the president.

Once Obama took the oath and became president, EVERYTHING that the federal govt does or does not do is his responsibility.
Now while he may be basing his decisions on what he thinks Bush messed up, it is still his responsibility.
He will get the blame, and he will get the credit.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Can you honestly say that you have not accused Bush supporters of worse when they have supported specific issues which you abhor?

Yep.

Foxfyre wrote:

The fact that you let those of like mind with you say virtually anything however crude, unkind, or ugly to or about anybody so long as you presumably agree with them suggests that you are holding CJ to a different standard. Are you?

I think you are projecting here.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

I actually think Joe's question was a really, really good one, given the discussion that has followed.

Joe's question couldn't have been good at all for I have it on high authority, Genoves, that everything Joe says is specious nonsense. Perhaps you misread his question or read something into it that wasn't there, Cy.

Remember, this comes from the fount so y'd better have one more look.

1 Reply

@JTT,

What was Joe's question?

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

You'll hafta track it down yourself, MM. Why would I waste my time on such drivel when that genius, Genoves has warned me to steer clear?

1 Reply

@JTT,

Because you want the question to be answered?

Because your smarter then Genoves and want to see a real conversation, instead of his drivel?

I would hope that either of those answers are correct, and not that you are not willing to have an honest discussion.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Because you want the question to be answered?

Because your smarter then Genoves and want to see a real conversation, instead of his drivel?

I would hope that either of those answers are correct, and not that you are not willing to have an honest discussion.

Here -

Quote:

Now, to be sure, there are plenty of people on the left whom I find embarrassing. Fortunately, I think many of the left-wing anti-Semites and 9/11 "truthers" didn't make the transition to the new A2K, but there are others with whom I'd still prefer not to be associated. Is that the same with you "MACs," or is "modern American conservatism" such a big tent ideology that you'll take any harebrained crank that comes along, spouting the latest in an endless series of increasingly implausible theories [..], so long as they're sufficiently conservative?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

I'm glad you showed up in this discussion, Mm. I'd thought of linking a couple of your posts here.

While I don't always agree with you (do I ever agree with anyone?), I have appreciated it when you've pointed out problems with arguments on both sides of the A2K U. S. political debating teams. And you've definitely taken genoves to task. It was good to see that you weren't an apologist on his behalf.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

ICAN:
Parados, the statement you boldfaced is not a logical implication of Madison No.45.
THOMAS:
Parados didn't claim it is. And of course it isn't! Instead, it's a logical implication of the Supreme Court rejecting Madison's view of the Welfare Clause in favor of Hamilton's!

Thomas, please post, or provide a link to, the actual Supreme Court's rejection of "Madison's view of the Welfare Clause in favor of Hamilton's!"

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Thanx Cyclo.

Now on to the question...

Quote:

Now, to be sure, there are plenty of people on the left whom I find embarrassing. Fortunately, I think many of the left-wing anti-Semites and 9/11 "truthers" didn't make the transition to the new A2K, but there are others with whom I'd still prefer not to be associated. Is that the same with you "MACs," or is "modern American conservatism" such a big tent ideology that you'll take any harebrained crank that comes along, spouting the latest in an endless series of increasingly implausible theories [..], so long as they're sufficiently conservative?

As a conservative, there are many people that call themselves conservatives that I want nothing to do with, nor do I respect their positions on anything.

Groups like the klan, any of the "white power" groups, anybody that advocates violence or hatred, or any group or person that thinks that hatred, blind bigotry, racism, sexism, or violence is acceptable should not be allowed into the conservative tent, IMHO.
I will have nothing to do with a person like that, and will oppose them whenever and wherever I can.

There are those on this site that call Obama and his supporters "traitors", or call Obama a "gangster".
We all know the people I am talking about, so I dont need to name them.

While I do think Obama is misguided and I do think his policies (so far) are wrong, I do not think that he is any kind of traitor, and strongly disagree with anyone that thinks he is.
I do not support the statements or opinions of those that think Obama is a traitor, and have said so before.

I dont know if that answers the question to anyones satisfaction, but its the best answer I have.

4 Replies

@mysteryman,

mm, Sounds like a rational, moderate, political position with which I heartily agree.

The only disagreement I may have with you is the actions Obama has taken to save our economy. I believe saving the banks and financial institutions are a necessary evil in order for our economy to function/survive.

No banks will translate into no economic activity.

I also do not agree with all of Obama's social initiatives that can wait. However, I believe it's necessary for our government to extend unemployment and some other benefits to those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own; they must support their families and children who can not fend for themselves.

I also disagree with the bailout of the auto companies, because "all" taxpayers who do not have the same wages and benefits are forced to support the union workers who have exacerbated the auto companies financial problems. I wish to also point out that Bush was the first one to help the auto companies and banks/finance companies with billions of dollars in bailout money.

Some people posting on these threads have the chutzpa to blame all the bailouts to Obama. It ain't so.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

Thank you, MM, for an honest and forthright answer.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

My answer--you know, the one they are pretending I didn't give--came from a somewhat different perspective.

Being a very strong First Amendment advocate, I dont' judge people because they give an unpopular opinion, no matter how stupid or ignorant it is. To me there is a world of difference between accusing Obama followers of being America's enemies re a specific circumstance--which is what started all this in the first place--and accusing Obama followers of being America's enemies in all circumstances. There were those who thought Bill Clinton's supervising the burning of an American flag on foreign soil to be a traitorous act and those who didn't have a problem with it were no friends of America. I don't have a problem with characterizing it that way while I would have a problem with characterizing Bill Clinton as a traitor or all of Clinton's followers as being enemies of America.

I prefer to judge people on what they do, how they treat others, and whether their value system is prejudiced against some but tolerant of similar or the same behavior of others. I am very much opposed to most political correctness as a means of judging a person's value, worth, or acceptability.
I think it is wrong to exclude all who don't share a particular point of view. I do think it is okay to exclude those who behave badly or demonstrate values that are not edifying to the group or society.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Some people posting on these threads have the chutzpa to blame all the bailouts to Obama. It ain't so.

I blame Obama for EVERY bailout that has happend since he took office.
He had to approve them, so nobody can blame those on Bush (as much as some have tried).

The bailout of the banks I am not sure about.
They might have been neccessary, but I'm not totally convinved of that.

The bailouts of any of the auto companies, or of any other private comapnies is IMHO 100% wrong.
I say let them fail.
Yes, some people would lose their jobs, but the companies would come back stronger.

The govt doesnt subsidize buggy whip makers, do they?

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

Thanks, Mm.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

I am heartened to see that Mysteryman thinks that Cicerone Imposter writes BULLSHIT! I do hope that he hasn't classed me with Cicerone. Even though Mysteryman may think my posts are "drivel", he has not summoned up enough courage( as most others have not) to show that they are drivel.

My message to mysteryman, who I usually agree with and who, up to this time, I have thought to be a brave man( I know he has served our country honorably), please do not debase yourself by descending to the level of some who think a rebuttal is a picture of an animal.

If you have a problem with my posts. either put me on ignore or be man enough to respond to them-and by respond I mean rebut.

Otherwise, shut up!

Mysteryman wrote:
These "same" people who support right to life also support killing abortion doctors who live within the laws of this country.

BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I support the right to life, and I DO NOT support killing anyone who disagrees with me.
For you to paint with such a large brush is beneath you, and you know it.
You condemn those on the right for making such sweeping generalities (and you should) then you turn around and do the same thing yourself.

Those that support the killing of doctors or anyone else involved in LEGAL activities are a tiny fringe element, just like the left has its own fringe element.
Are you willing to say that the fringe element speaks for you?

Quote:
During the campaign last year, a conservative shouted "kill him" when talking about Obama.

This might be true, I dont know.
Do you have any documentation to back up this claim?
And if it is true, I will condemn that also

0 Replies

Cicerone Imposter wrote:

Re: mysteryman (Post 3666842)
mm, Sounds like a rational, moderate, political position with which I heartily agree.

The only disagreement I may have with you is the actions Obama has taken to save our economy. I believe saving the banks and financial institutions are a necessary evil in order for our economy to function/survive.

No banks will translate into no economic activity.

I also do not agree with all of Obama's social initiatives that can wait. However, I believe it's necessary for our government to extend unemployment and some other benefits to those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own; they must support their families and children who can not fend for themselves.

I also disagree with the bailout of the auto companies, because "all" taxpayers who do not have the same wages and benefits are forced to support the union workers who have exacerbated the auto companies financial problems. I wish to also point out that Bush was the first one to help the auto companies and banks/finance companies with billions of dollars in bailout money.

Some people posting on these threads have the chutzpa to blame all the bailouts to Obama. It ain't so.

*****************************************************************

That is, if I may quote Mysteryman, in his rebuttal to Cicerone Imposter-\

BULLSHIT!

It is bullshit because it is unsourced and undocumented opinion which does not hold up in the light of other documentation and evidence.

But since the moronic Cicerone Imposter rarely posts any documentation and evidence, it is BULLSHIT!

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know