AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Debra Law,

Bye Bye Baby!

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Walter Williams wrote:

...
Speaking of the ballot box, we can blame politicians to some extent for the trampling of our liberty. But the bulk of the blame lies with us voters, because politicians are often doing what we elect them to do. The sad truth is that we elect them for the specific purpose of taking the property of other Americans and giving it to us. Many manufacturers think that the government owes them a protective tariff to keep out foreign goods, resulting in artificially higher prices for consumers. Many farmers think the government owes them a crop subsidy, which raises the price of food. Organized labor thinks government should protect their jobs from non-union competition. And so on. We could even consider many college professors, who love to secure government grants to study poverty and then meet at hotels in Miami during the winter to talk about poor people. All of these"and hundreds of other similar demands on government that I could cite"represent involuntary exchanges and diminish our freedom.
...

0 Replies

@kickycan,

kicky, That's what I enjoy about your posts; they are direct and to the point. Anyone who confuses what you say just doesn't understand the English language.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

Foofie wrote:
a) I did not "attack" you. I did not accuse you of telling me to leave. You told me my opinions are not appropriate for the forum, if I understood the content of your phraseology.

b) I did not accuse you of "bossing me around." How can I "boss" anyone around on a forum? I have no rank in the forum.

If you do not like my opinions, sans facts, then you should not read my posts. Or, you can read them, but communicating your preference for "reasoned judgement" might not be what anyone will get from reading my posts, so it would behoove one to not set standards for my posting.

Your "Summary" above seems to focus on what you are interested in? What if I am neither interested in what you are interested in, or in "building up credibility," as you put it?

Let us not argue. Let us not have forum repartee.

Your present words are refuted by your prior words:

Foofie wrote:

Debra Law wrote:

This is a discussion board.

This isn't a forum where you may stand upon a soap box, hurl lofty statements at people, and then evade the discomfort of having your words subjected to the crucible of examination by making the juvenile argument that you are merely stating a personal opinion. Come to the discussion prepared to support and defend your statements or face the criticism you deserve for your cop-out.

Notice how few minds are convinced with any "facts" presented. We just see rounds and rounds of opposing discussion. I explain my opinion, as to why I have it. But, if you do not want my opinion, that is fine; however, you are not the sergeant at arms to tell me to leave, in my opinion. And, your calling my opinion a juvenile argument is fallacious, since I never said it was an argument. And, do not tell me that I must, "Come to the discussion prepared to support and defend your statements or face the criticism you deserve for your cop-out," since you do not make the rules of the forum. I have noticed many a comment on the forum that in no way reflects an argument.

If I did not know better, I would think your comments about me reflects your actually talking down to me. Do you have any rank in the forum?

Because you do not value reasoned judgment, and because you prefer to throw around your uninformed opinions rather than engage in critical thinking and legitimate discussion, and because you don't care whether you have any credibility as a poster, it appears that you rank fairly low on the list of serious contributors to this thread. That's just my opinion. ROFL

Well, assuming you are correct that "it appears that you rank fairly low on the list of serious contributors to this thread," why empower my posts with any response?

And to all a good night.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Foofie wrote:
Quote:

By the way, Black Americans got freedom under Lincoln.

However, it's the conservatives who are the racists today; who deny that Obama is an American citizen, and discriminate against gays and lesbians. Lincoln was never like the conservatives of today.

When did the lgbt community become a race?

I do not think putting Condaleeza Rice in the Cabinet, or putting Colin Powell in the Cabinet reflected conservative racism. On the contrary, I believe it just showed that conservatives put qualified people in positions.

And, that is questionnable logic for you to put all conservatives in the same category as the birthers. Perhaps, many birthers are conservatives, but all conservatives are not birthers. Remember the Venn diagrams in algebra?

1 Reply

@Foofie,

So Colin Powell is a qualified person? I don't disagree with you here. You might recall that Powell's enforcement of Obama was taken as him sticking with the "brothas."

Even Shelby Steele, prior to his appointment of Chair of the GOP, vocalized his embarrassment at the party's failure to reach out to minority communities. Now that he's in place, he doesn't speak so rogue. I honestly hope he succeeds at big tenting the GOP, it would drive them back toward the center. All people, not just the GOP benefit from this.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

Foofie wrote:

By the way, Black Americans got freedom under Lincoln.

When did they, in your opinion, get equality?

Lincoln simply made them not slaves anymore. Is that your definition of freedom?

The GOP doesn't actually benefit from bringing up Lincoln as an example of their commitment to equality. It just shows that they've a perfect example of how their modern leadership in the twentieth century really abandoned Lincoln's direction.

Foofie wrote:

Now, leave me alone. You should not argue with me, since I do not live in your world. Having had different experiences, I do not see the world from your perspective.

This would not mean you don't live in his world, only that you see the SAME world from a different perspective.

Besides, if you live in a different world that CI, then there is no point in you arguing with anyone else in "another" world is there, so why do you do it. Point blank, you don't actually believe what you said here.

T
K
O

While Lincoln (a Republican) freed the slaves, how was he going to erase the prejudice in the society, so Black Americans could have equality in the latter half of the nineteenth century. You are free; do you think everyone you might meet in this life will not have any prejudice to you for one reason or another? So, I too am free, and I have met prejudice. That does equate to non-equality. Do you have any suggestions to wipe away the prejudice in society, seeing how many people's prejudices reflect popular notions in society? On both sides of the political spectrum there are those who believe the popular culture, and its respective notions, are based on fact.

When I said that I do not live in the same world, as someone else, I was talking colloquially for the fact that my "set of experiences" is quite different than another person's "set of experiences." A "set of experiences" making up the world we live in. I was not talking about the fact that we both breath oxygen and drink water.

So, there are people that I do have a more similar set of experiences, the "set" being a continuum from "little in common," to "much in common." Oddly, this forum seems to have few that I have much in common?

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

So Colin Powell is a qualified person? I don't disagree with you here. You might recall that Powell's enforcement of Obama was taken as him sticking with the "brothas."

Even Shelby Steele, prior to his appointment of Chair of the GOP, vocalized his embarrassment at the party's failure to reach out to minority communities. Now that he's in place, he doesn't speak so rogue. I honestly hope he succeeds at big tenting the GOP, it would drive them back toward the center. All people, not just the GOP benefit from this.

T
K
O

Why should Republicans "reach out to minority communities"? By virtue of its beliefs, the party reaches out to those with conservative values. One's position on some sociological ethnic continuum is a non-sequitor, I believe. Plus, in my opinion, the need to "reach out," implies that voters want to be liked by the party they vote for, rather than voting for the party that is good for the U.S. as a continuum of the nation that was built by conservative values. You might have uncovered the puerile underbelly of many voters' political party preference.

2 Replies

@Foofie,

Quote:

rather than voting for the party that is good for the U.S. as a continuum of the nation that was built by conservative values.

It's the ole..
"America was built by people that think like me, and if you don't think like me then you ain't an 'Merican" argument.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

They have managed to enable total USA employment to DECREASE over 5 million persons, while EACH of their predecessors since 1980 managed to enable total USA employment to INCREASE by more than a million persons.

Hey, douchebag, take a look at this chart from July of 2003. As you can see from the entry at the bottom, your hero, GWBush had lost 2.37 million jobs by that point. In two and a half years in office.

Now, during Obama's term so far, if your numbers are to be believed, we've lost 5 million jobs, but most of that, if not all, is because of the economic catastrophe that we are in right now, in case you hadn't noticed. And that was handed to him by your hero, GW. I can only hope that a complete ******* douche bag such as yourself will see what this means. But you won't. Why? Because it's very difficult to see anything with your head so far up Glen Beck's asshole.

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/07/02/business/03JOBSch450.gif

3 Replies

@Foofie,

Foofie, what I want is what you want. I want that which "is good for the U.S. as a continuum of the nation that was built by conservative values."

Obama's administration consists of people dedicated to perpetrating wealth redistribution in order to supress difference in the benefits of individual accomplishment and achievement. Obama's administration is not competent to determine and implement that which "is good for the U.S. as a continuum of the nation that was built by conservative values."

So far Obama administration efforts have resulted in a decrease in total USA employment from more than 145 million at the end of 2008 to less than 140 million within the first 8 months of this year. In each president's term 1980 to 2008, employment increased more than a million people. However, in Obama's first 8 months, employment decreased more than 5 million people.

That decrease in employment under Obama's administration is a result of the decrease in GDP, also in Obama's first 8 months. GDP decreased in Obama's first 8 months from more than 14,208 trillion dollars to less than 14.109 trillion dollars--a decrease of almost 100 billion dollars. In each president's term 1980 to 2008, GDP increased more than a trillion dollars.

Federal Budget deficits in each year 1980 to 2008 were never more than 415 billion dollars. The Federal Budget deficit for 2009 is estimated to be almost a trillion dollars. Obviously excess federal spending does not improve our economy. It cripples it.

Federal spending must be reduced to permit federal taxes to be reduced enough to turn around our economy's current rapid decline. Obama's administration must end its wealth redistribution in order to stimulate individual accomplishment and achievement. If Obama's administration fails to end its wealth redistribution programs, then the Obama's administration must itself be ended by replacing it with an administration that is competent to determine and implement that which "is good for the U.S. as a continuum of the nation that was built by conservative values."

0 Replies

@kickycan,

Quote:

Now, during Obama's term so far, if your numbers are to be believed, we've lost 5 million jobs, but most of that, if not all, is because of the economic catastrophe that we are in right now, in case you hadn't noticed. And that was handed to him by your hero, GW.

Lets assume, for the sake of this discussion, that you are correct.
I dont believe that you are totally correct, BTW.

When Obama presents and passes his first budget, will you then admit that the economy and the deficit are his problem?
After all, once he passes his budget, all of the economic decisions will be of his making.

2 Replies

@kickycan,

Kickycan, the year 2003 ain't the same thing as the year 2008! Also percent unemployed ain't the same thing as total employed.

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
HISTORY OF TOTAL USA EMPLOYMENT 1980 - 2009

....Total USA Employed.....Change
Carter
1980…… 99,302,000………….. + 7,285,000
Reagan
1984….. 105,005,000…………...+ 5,703,000
Reagan
1988….. 114,968,000…………...+ 9,963,000
Bush I
1992….. 118,492,000…………...+ 3,524,000
Clinton
1996….. 126,708,000…………...+ 8,216,000
Clinton
2000….. 136,891,000…………...+ 10,183,000
Bush II
2004….. 139,252,000…………...+ 2,361,000
Bush II
2008….. 145,362,000…………...+ 6,110,000
Obama
2009….. 139,649,000…………...- 5,713,000 (as of August 31, 2009)

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

My post is specifically about Ican being a complete ******* douche bag and should in no way be considered a representation of my opinions on the matter of whether Obama can be held responsible or not.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
Now, during Obama's term so far, if your numbers are to be believed, we've lost 5 million jobs, but most of that, if not all, is because of the economic catastrophe that we are in right now, in case you hadn't noticed. And that was handed to him by your hero, GW.

Lets assume, for the sake of this discussion, that you are correct.
I dont believe that you are totally correct, BTW.

When Obama presents and passes his first budget, will you then admit that the economy and the deficit are his problem?
After all, once he passes his budget, all of the economic decisions will be of his making.

They are already his PROBLEM, the question is, are they his FAULT. The answer is, no. He's playing the hand he was dealt.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Kickycan, the year 2003 ain't the same thing as the year 2008! Also percent unemployed ain't the same thing as total employed.

None of which has anything to do with what I posted. But it does show that you have no ******* clue what you are talking about. Douche bag.

Once again, look to the bottom of the chart. 2.7 million jobs lost under Bush in 2.5 years. Douche bag. Without an economic collapse like Obama had to deal with. Douche bag.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

The Democrat controlled congress passed the 2009 federal budget and Bush signed it.

The Democrat controlled congress passed the TARP bill and Bush signed it.

The Democrat controlled congress passed the Stimulus bill and Obama signed it.

The Democrat controlled congress and Obama have not yet rescinded any part of the TARP bill.

The Democrat controlled congress and Obama have not yet rescinded any part of the Stimulus bill.

The Democrat controlled congress and Obama have not yet rescinded any part of the 2009 federal budget.

Therefore, the Democrat controlled congress and Obama are responsible for the consequences of the TARP bill.

Therefore, the Democrat controlled congress and Obama are responsible for the consequences of the Stimulus bill.

Therefore, the Democrat controlled congress and Obama are responsible for the consequences of the federal budget.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

The Democrat controlled congress passed the 2009 federal budget and Bush signed it.

The Democrat controlled congress passed the TARP bill and Bush signed it.

The Democrat controlled congress passed the Stimulus bill and Obama signed it.

The Democrat controlled congress and Obama have not yet rescinded any part of the TARP bill.

The Democrat controlled congress and Obama have not yet rescinded any part of the Stimulus bill.

The Democrat controlled congress and Obama have not yet rescinded any part of the 2009 federal budget.

Therefore, the Democrat controlled congress and Obama are responsible for the consequences of the TARP bill.

Therefore, the Democrat controlled congress and Obama are responsible for the consequences of the Stimulus bill.

Therefore, the Democrat controlled congress and Obama are responsible for the consequences of the federal budget.

Bullshit. And therefore, you're a moronic douche bag.

1 Reply

@kickycan,

kickycan wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

The Democrat controlled congress passed the 2009 federal budget and Bush signed it.

The Democrat controlled congress passed the TARP bill and Bush signed it.

The Democrat controlled congress passed the Stimulus bill and Obama signed it.

The Democrat controlled congress and Obama have not yet rescinded any part of the TARP bill.

The Democrat controlled congress and Obama have not yet rescinded any part of the Stimulus bill.

The Democrat controlled congress and Obama have not yet rescinded any part of the 2009 federal budget.

Therefore, the Democrat controlled congress and Obama are responsible for the consequences of the TARP bill.

Therefore, the Democrat controlled congress and Obama are responsible for the consequences of the Stimulus bill.

Therefore, the Democrat controlled congress and Obama are responsible for the consequences of the federal budget.

Bullshit. And therefore, you're a moronic douche bag.

What part of is this is bullshit?

0 Replies

@kickycan,

kickycan wrote:

Hey, douchebag, take a look at this chart from July of 2003. As you can see from the entry at the bottom, your hero, GWBush had lost 2.37 million jobs by that point. In two and a half years in office.

More than 5.71 million jobs lost in 8 months is a TAD worse than 2.37 million jobs lost in 30 months.

5.71 million jobs lost in Obama's 8 months = 0.713 million jobs lost per month.
2.37 million jobs lost in Bush II's 30 months is 0.079 million jobs lost per month.

In Bush II's case all of those jobs were regained plus more added by 2004:

Quote:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Clinton
2000….. 136,891,000
Bush II
2004….. 139,252,000

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know