AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

I think this is illustrative: Conservatives are angry, b/c they are focusing on parts of legislation while ignoring other parts.

From your piece:

Quote:

And responding to release of the document, The Environmental Defense Fund issued a statement insisting that the figures ignore the cost savings to consumers from cap-and-trade legislation.

“Even if a 100 percent auction was a live legislative proposal, which it's not, that math ignores the redistribution of revenue back to consumers,” the environmental fund’s statement said. “It only looks at one side of the balance sheet. It would only be true if you think the Administration was going to pile all the cash on the White House lawn and set it on fire.”

How convenient, to talk about the cost but ignore the revenues produced by the program.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I think this is illustrative: Conservatives are angry, b/c they are focusing on parts of legislation while ignoring other parts.

From your piece:

Quote:

And responding to release of the document, The Environmental Defense Fund issued a statement insisting that the figures ignore the cost savings to consumers from cap-and-trade legislation.

“Even if a 100 percent auction was a live legislative proposal, which it's not, that math ignores the redistribution of revenue back to consumers,” the environmental fund’s statement said. “It only looks at one side of the balance sheet. It would only be true if you think the Administration was going to pile all the cash on the White House lawn and set it on fire.”

How convenient, to talk about the cost but ignore the revenues produced by the program.

Cycloptichorn

Please outline the revenues I will receive for my $1,700+ expense.

Given a choice of three options, just 24 percent of voters can correctly identify the cap-and-trade proposal as something that deals with environmental issues. A slightly higher number (29 percent) believe the proposal has something to do with regulating Wall Street while 17 percent think the term applies to health care reform. A plurality (30 percent) have no idea.

Gleanings from today's email. I subscribe to daily updates from a NFP group called Human Events that describes themselves as the 'conservative underground'. I thought their promo sent out today was a pretty good one and pretty well sums up where I think American conservatives are mostly coming from these days:

Why Are Liberals Still Angry?

The liberals were crazy angry while George W. Bush was president. Part of it was that for a time after 9/11, they were made completely irrelevant " when people are dying, who is going to listen to a liberal?

But another part of it is that it’s much easier to hate a person than to hate a concept " like conservatism. So they were able to channel all their hate into President Bush. And they were jumping-around-pooh-flinging-biting-each-other angry. I think a number of conservatives were secretly looking forward to the Obama presidency in hopes that liberals might just calm down a little. Maybe they’d even consider supporting the troops in their war efforts for a change. At least, maybe they would be a bit less angry.

Big miscalculation.

Now conservatives have more reason to be angry these days, with liberals in charge and all the spending and government takeovers. But with Democrats having complete control of the government, you’d think liberals could be dismissive of conservatives and be calm themselves. But no, they’re still crazy angry. Maybe even angrier than before. Biting-fingers-off angry. They’re screeching about how all the people opposed to Obama are racists and neo-Nazis and stupid, and they’re using sexual slurs against protesters and boycotting everyone who disagrees with them. They’re still nuts, but why?

See things from their point of view. The most fundamental principle liberals have is that they are all very, very smart, and everyone should listen to them. Nothing angers them more than something that challenges them to reexamine that core tenet. And that’s why they were so delighted by the election of President Obama and further wins in the House and Senate. For a moment they thought the American people had recognized liberals as their superiors and said to them: “Please! Smart people! Lead us and tell us what to do!”

Of course, it is quite obvious right now that that’s not at all what the election was about. The Republicans had been screw-ups for a while, and with the failing economy (people tend to vote for the president based on the economy, which is only a tad smarter than voting based on the weather, but whatcha gonna do?), most people just felt they couldn’t reward the Republicans with leadership again. Also, many people were tired of the hostility between conservatives and liberals (though I’m not sure why Republicans got the blame, since we could have had bipartisanship if at any time liberals had decided to stop being a bunch of screeching ninnies who mindlessly opposed whatever Bush was for). Then came along Barack Obama, who promised non-specific hope and change, and everyone was like, “Non-specific hope and change sounds like a great idea!”

But now we can see the problem. After Barack Obama was elected, he started doing specific things. Liberal things. No one voted for that, so Obama’s approval ratings have dropped faster than those of any president before him. And you can see why liberals are so frustrated. They had a charismatic liberal overwhelmingly elected with Democratic majorities, and even he is utterly failing to sell liberalism to the American people.

Circulated e-mails do not contribute to anyone's knowledge or understanding. Their purpose is to reinforce group-think. Reading them may have a negative effect on your IQ.

The liberals were crazy angry while George W. Bush was president. Part of it was that for a time after 9/11, they were made completely irrelevant " when people are dying, who is going to listen to a liberal?

Foxfyre wrote:

Gleanings from today's email. I subscribe to daily updates from a NFP group called Human Events that describes themselves as the 'conservative underground'. I thought their promo sent out today was a pretty good one and pretty well sums up where I think American conservatives are mostly coming from these days:

Circulated e-mails do not contribute to anyone's knowledge or understanding. Their purpose is to reinforce group-think. Reading them may have a negative effect on your IQ.

. . . now we can see the problem. After Barack Obama was elected, he started doing specific things. Liberal things. No one voted for that, so Obama’s approval ratings have dropped faster than those of any president before him. And you can see why liberals are so frustrated. They had a charismatic liberal overwhelmingly elected with Democratic majorities, and even he is utterly failing to sell liberalism to the American people.

Or being careful in what was said regarding spamming. Nobody has ever accused ME of being shy about expressing my opinions or of expressing one that I am not prepared to defend. I did not object to posting articles. I object to those who post articles and then refuse to discuss the subject in them.

Here is a thought provoking essay from one conservative Canadian that will probably ring true with most MACs, might inspire some critical thinking among intelligent non-MACs, and will probably be totally over the head of the peanut gallery and numbnuts who don't even understand what a MAC is, much less are bright enough to discuss ideas, issues and/or concepts.

I have highlighted what I think is the "money paragraph" supported by illustrations in the rest of the essay.

What do you think of Steyn's opinion expressed in the highlighted (red) paragraph above?

What do you think of Steyn's opinion expressed in the highlighted (red) paragraph above?

I would appreciate your impression of the accuracy of the statement however. Here it is in black type:

Actually I believe he did provide some actual examples that of course are a result of their various histories.

Do you disagree with the statement? Please elaborate on why if you do.

It is anybody and everybody who believes, supports, and is likely to be willing to defend the ideas, ideals, principles, and values that have been defined as MAC on this thread

I have answered you several times about the Conservatives in Canada and their platform/s. Steyn provided no examples. He hinted, but there was no evidence.

I have not seen any evidence from you to support your thesis . . . .

You presented Steyn. You can back him up.

It is not my thesis. It is Mark Steyn's thesis, therefore I have no obligation to defend or support it. My interest here is to discuss it.

I object to those who post articles and then refuse to discuss the subject in them.

McG, that IS an interesting essay. I wonder if any of the Leftists will actually read it? For me, the money paragraph is this:

Why are liberals angry?

Quote:

. . . now we can see the problem. After Barack Obama was elected, he started doing specific things. Liberal things. No one voted for that, so Obama’s approval ratings have dropped faster than those of any president before him. And you can see why liberals are so frustrated. They had a charismatic liberal overwhelmingly elected with Democratic majorities, and even he is utterly failing to sell liberalism to the American people.

No one voted for that, so Obama’s approval ratings have dropped faster than those of any president before him.

Foxfyre wrote:

Or being careful in what was said regarding spamming. Nobody has ever accused ME of being shy about expressing my opinions or of expressing one that I am not prepared to defend. I did not object to posting articles. I object to those who post articles and then refuse to discuss the subject in them.

Foxfyre posts spam all the time and demands that OTHER people discuss it in detail. Case in point is the Steyn column she posted:

Foxfyre wrote:

Here is a thought provoking essay from one conservative Canadian that will probably ring true with most MACs, might inspire some critical thinking among intelligent non-MACs, and will probably be totally over the head of the peanut gallery and numbnuts who don't even understand what a MAC is, much less are bright enough to discuss ideas, issues and/or concepts.

I have highlighted what I think is the "money paragraph" supported by illustrations in the rest of the essay.

http://able2know.org/topic/113196-782#post-3754277

Foxfyre did not discuss WHY she thought the red highlighted paragraph was the "money paragraph," but demanded to know what other posters thought of the paragraph:

To JPB, Foxfyre wrote:

What do you think of Steyn's opinion expressed in the highlighted (red) paragraph above?

http://able2know.org/topic/113196-782#post-3754282

Why is Foxfyre demanding that JPB discuss the highlighted paragraph when Foxfyre has not done so herself?

To Rockhead, Foxfyre wrote:

What do you think of Steyn's opinion expressed in the highlighted (red) paragraph above?

http://able2know.org/topic/113196-783#post-3754300

Rockhead told Foxy that he didn't care about it and that he didn't read red. Foxy again demanded that Rockhead discuss the paragraph when Foxy has not done so herself:

To Rockhead, Foxfyre wrote:

I would appreciate your impression of the accuracy of the statement however. Here it is in black type:

http://able2know.org/topic/113196-783#post-3754306

Why is Foxfyre demanding that Rockhead discuss the "accuracy" of the paragraph when Foxfyre has not done so herself?

Joefromchicago pointed out that Stein had failed to provide any historical examples to support his thesis.

To Joe, Foxfyre wrote wrote:

Actually I believe he did provide some actual examples that of course are a result of their various histories.

Do you disagree with the statement? Please elaborate on why if you do.

http://able2know.org/topic/113196-783#post-3754308

Foxfyre merely claimed that she "believed" Stein did what Joe said he hadn't done, and demanded that Joe state whether he disagreed with the statement and to elaborate on why he disagreed.

Why is Foxy demanding that Joe elaborate on his agreement or disagreement with the highlighted paragraph when Foxy has failed to elaborate on her opinion that the paragraph was the "money paragraph"?

Well . . . the discussion goes on and on . . . (sampling below)

http://able2know.org/topic/113196-783#post-3754315
http://able2know.org/topic/113196-783#post-3754343
http://able2know.org/topic/113196-784#post-3754371
http://able2know.org/topic/113196-784#post-3754376
http://able2know.org/topic/113196-784#post-3754390
http://able2know.org/topic/113196-784#post-3754398

without Foxy actually discussing the highlighted paragraph but demanding that others do so in detail by responding to her questions!

Again, Foxy claimed the Steyn article would probably ring true with MACS, and described MACS as follows:

Responding to ehBeth's question about the identity of MACS, Foxfyre wrote:

It is anybody and everybody who believes, supports, and is likely to be willing to defend the ideas, ideals, principles, and values that have been defined as MAC on this thread

Other than continue to demand that other people respond to her questions, Foxy never once discussed the article she posted nor did she explain why she thought the paragraph that she highlighted in red was the "money paragraph."

FINALLY, ehbeth stated the following:

ehbeth wrote:

I have answered you several times about the Conservatives in Canada and their platform/s. Steyn provided no examples. He hinted, but there was no evidence.

I have not seen any evidence from you to support your thesis . . . .

You presented Steyn. You can back him up.

http://able2know.org/topic/113196-788#post-3754544

Even though Foxfyre claimed that Steyn's article would ring true with MACS, and MACS are willing to defend the ideas that have been identified with MACS, Foxfyre REFUSED to back up Steyn's article:

Foxfyre wrote:

It is not my thesis. It is Mark Steyn's thesis, therefore I have no obligation to defend or support it. My interest here is to discuss it.

Foxfyre posted the article, but she NEVER discussed it! She demanded that everyone else elaborate in detail why they agreed or disagreed with it, but she NEVER put her own chips on the table. Despite her description of a MAC as someone who is willing to defend MAC ideas, she absolutely refused to defend or support the article she posted and identified as ringing true for MACS. She merely demanded answers to her questions. NOW she states the following:

Foxfyre wrote:

I object to those who post articles and then refuse to discuss the subject in them.

Why do we feed this narcissistic hypocrite?

From now on, members should REFUSE to discuss the articles that Foxfyre posts unless she puts her own chips on the table first and discusses (in ELABORATE detail) why she agrees or disagrees with what she has posted.

McG, that IS an interesting essay. I wonder if any of the Leftists will actually read it? For me, the money paragraph is this:
Why are liberals angry?

Quote:

. . . now we can see the problem. After Barack Obama was elected, he started doing specific things. Liberal things. No one voted for that, so Obama’s approval ratings have dropped faster than those of any president before him. And you can see why liberals are so frustrated. They had a charismatic liberal overwhelmingly elected with Democratic majorities, and even he is utterly failing to sell liberalism to the American people.

Foxfyre wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I think this is illustrative: Conservatives are angry, b/c they are focusing on parts of legislation while ignoring other parts.

From your piece:

Quote:

And responding to release of the document, The Environmental Defense Fund issued a statement insisting that the figures ignore the cost savings to consumers from cap-and-trade legislation.

“Even if a 100 percent auction was a live legislative proposal, which it's not, that math ignores the redistribution of revenue back to consumers,” the environmental fund’s statement said. “It only looks at one side of the balance sheet. It would only be true if you think the Administration was going to pile all the cash on the White House lawn and set it on fire.”

How convenient, to talk about the cost but ignore the revenues produced by the program.

Cycloptichorn

Please outline the revenues I will receive for my $1,700+ expense.

To begin, you're not going to have a $1700 per year expense. That's a bullshit figure. But, the revenues will not be directly returned to you, but go to our Federal government - which directly lowers your tax burden, proportionally to the number of people paying taxes.

More importantly, however, is the fact that the majority of people out there aren't against cap-and-trade; the truth is the majority doesn't even know what it is, including the majority of Conservatives and Republicans. Hard to claim that folks who can't correctly identify any aspects of a bill, could be honestly angry about it.

Here, your favorite guy -

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/environment/congress_pushes_cap_and_trade_but_just_24_know_what_it_is

Quote:

Given a choice of three options, just 24 percent of voters can correctly identify the cap-and-trade proposal as something that deals with environmental issues. A slightly higher number (29 percent) believe the proposal has something to do with regulating Wall Street while 17 percent think the term applies to health care reform. A plurality (30 percent) have no idea.

Cycloptichorn

Continued at link. Interesting, I had not really thought about why libbies are still angry, but a good point is made here.

Americans don’t like liberalism. Obama was only elected because Americans like people who say happy things, but it was in no way meant as an endorsement of liberalism. As liberals start to realize this, they’re only going to get screechier and angrier. So we might as well figure out a way to use that. [...]

Frank J. Fleming writes political humor at IMAO.us and gets crazy angry if someone puts two m's in his name.