AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

"Not honest", okie? Or simply unwilling to accept your unilateral reclassification? Which as far as I can tell only has two categories: conservative, vs. liberal-socialist-communist. Which is complete crap. There has for decades been a centrist, "moderate" position, which included politicians like Rockefeller, Nixon, Ford, GHWBush, and, yes, JFK, and Bill Clinton. Just because you don't recognize it doesn't mean it doesn't exist--it merely means you're blinded by your narrow ideology.

3 Replies

@MontereyJack,

You have probably read posts in which the writer says that s/he is not a liberal. Then the person goes on to explain what they mean.

okie, here, reserves the right to contradict these people on their deeply held beliefs. I raise the ire of righties here by calling the Tea Party the Tea Totalitarians. In this statement, okie demonstrates that set-mindedness that inspired my label. The world exists only as okie sees it and he brooks no variance from his limited and skewed vision.

He is totally wrong and yet he has the nerve to correct others, even people he has never met as they describe themselves! It does not matter that the writers okie scoffs at are educated or at least as old as he is . . . his view of their minds takes precedence over their own statements of self! Then, he has the unmitigated gall to apply the term "Nazi" to the left! okie here is a tyrant . . . in the 21st C American meaning of the word and not in the classical Greek.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Besides, okie responded to my statement of how he . . . and a few others . . . feel an obligation to criticize the lefties for the way they post and not the content of the posts. His statement defines non sequitur.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

You have probably read posts in which the writer says that s/he is not a liberal. Then the person goes on to explain what they mean.

okie, here, reserves the right to contradict these people on their deeply held beliefs.

Yes, I reserve the right to disagree and express my opinion. Last I checked, that was a basic human right in this country. Just because you or some other liberal expresses an opinion, that does not in any way indicate it is always 100% correct. All of this only serves to illustrate further the arrogance of liberals, as you apparently think your opinions are the only correct ones and you are perfectly balanced.

Quote:

I raise the ire of righties here by calling the Tea Party the Tea Totalitarians.

You are correct that you raise the ire of conservatives, because your statement is libelous and false, we are about as far from totalitarian as you can get, in fact totalitarians are mostly lefties.

Quote:

In this statement, okie demonstrates that set-mindedness that inspired my label. The world exists only as okie sees it and he brooks no variance from his limited and skewed vision.

He is totally wrong and yet he has the nerve to correct others, even people he has never met as they describe themselves! It does not matter that the writers okie scoffs at are educated or at least as old as he is . . . his view of their minds takes precedence over their own statements of self! Then, he has the unmitigated gall to apply the term "Nazi" to the left! okie here is a tyrant . . . in the 21st C American meaning of the word and not in the classical Greek.

You say I have the nerve to correct others, but you do the same thing here, but apparently it is not nerve or it is not correcting others according to you? Perhaps a lowly okie is not even viewed as one of "others," perhaps I am not viewed as human or deserving of having an opinion?

2 Replies

@okie,

Okie, you are a "Righty" and therefore "Evil", according to Plainoldme.

Of course you are "not viewed as human or deserving of having an opinion."

I told you all, she's bat-****-crazy and not worth your time.

2 Replies

@maporsche,

It's funny, because according to okie, all liberals are mentally deficient or brainwashed or radicals. If they would only see the light, they would be conservatives.
And, vice versa, all radicals and nutcases that he disagrees with are by definition liberals.

I think it works out nicely.

2 Replies

@old europe,

Yeah, that's true too.

Very unfortunate that this is the level of discourse they both choose to engage in.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

"Not honest", okie? Or simply unwilling to accept your unilateral reclassification? Which as far as I can tell only has two categories: conservative, vs. liberal-socialist-communist. Which is complete crap. There has for decades been a centrist, "moderate" position, which included politicians like Rockefeller, Nixon, Ford, GHWBush, and, yes, JFK, and Bill Clinton. Just because you don't recognize it doesn't mean it doesn't exist--it merely means you're blinded by your narrow ideology.

I can agree with some of your points to a degree, however, it is my opinion that everyone falls into the spectrum somewhere to the left or right, and I think hardly anyone is perfectly positioned as a centrist or moderate directly in the middle, especially now with the polarization of politics becoming so severe, with Demcrats gravitating ultra left, and more moderate positions being labeled ultra right. I don't even think the political spectrum is properly understood or described properly, in context with the way it was viewed in the past. Your examples serve to illustrate this very well, with your examples of Rockefeller, Nixon, Ford, Bush I, and JFK. I don't think Clinton is a valid example, as people tried to cast him as a moderate, but he really was not. I admit he did get dragged into welfare reform, and he did preside over closing out annual deficits for a time, but without the Republican Congress it would never have happened. And no moderate would have been a pot smoking hippie that cavorted with the Soviets in the 60's, or would have abused an intern in the Whitehouse. Many of the policies of the Republicans you named would be labeled as extreme rightie policies if brought back today.

Look, I think I am very balanced and in the middle, not extreme in any direction, but I am not going to be ashamed of saying I am very conservative. I think conservative is the balanced position, but that is not the way most political analysts would classify where I sit on the spectrum. Jack, I think you would be better served by admitting you have beliefs consistent with liberal idealogy on some issues, and if you think you are not extremely set in your positions, perhaps just admit you are mildly liberal. After all, it is obvious from your opinions that you almost always take the liberal leaning view on most issues. If you think that is wrong, I would love to hear some examples from you in regard to some issues, where you think you are being more conservative.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

Look, I think I am very balanced and in the middle, not extreme in any direction, but I am not going to be ashamed of saying I am very conservative.

are you serious? You cannot be both balanced and 'in the middle' and very conservative at the same time! 'Very Conservative' is by definition at the end of the spectrum.

This actually explains a lot about you, Okie. You at the same time identify as an ideological purist AND as a member of the 'middle majority.' You couldn't be more wrong.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

It's funny, because according to okie, all liberals are mentally deficient or brainwashed or radicals. If they would only see the light, they would be conservatives.
And, vice versa, all radicals and nutcases that he disagrees with are by definition liberals.

I think it works out nicely.

Here again, you accuse me of having opinions that I suspect you have of conservatives. If you can cite one example of where I have accused liberals of being mentally deficient, please do so. Back up your accusations. I do think liberal idealogy has been taught and furthered in educational institutions, especially some universities. Would I call it brainwashing, no I would not, and I don't think I have ever made that accusation. In regard to radicals, yes, I do believe and I have said many times that the Democratic Party has become radicalized. I have accused Obama as being radical, and I think he is by virtue of some of his background and what he is promoting. I think appointing Marxists to the administration is radical. I think Marxism is radical. And I am not ashamed to say so, and I will continue to say so. Do I think all liberals and Democrats are radicals, no I do not, and I do not believe I have ever said so. You need to provide proof of your accusations, oe, or kindly make an apology. I think most Democrats and liberals are simply misguided. In fact, I think most are decent people with good intentions, but have simply been misguided into thinking that some politicians and their political approaches are good and will work, when they are not and will not.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

are you serious? You cannot be both balanced and 'in the middle' and very conservative at the same time! 'Very Conservative' is by definition at the end of the spectrum.

This actually explains a lot about you, Okie. You at the same time identify as an ideological purist AND as a member of the 'middle majority.' You couldn't be more wrong.

Cycloptichorn

I am serious. I think being very conservative is very balanced and correct. I have already explained to you that the spectrum is not currently described that way, so I would not describe myself as a moderate. I am conservative, and proudly so, and I can and will expound on the reasons I believe as I do, as most of you know by now. But that does not take away from what I believe constitutes a balanced and middle of the road life or political view.

I think people that know me personally believe I am balanced and moderate. I am probably more agressive on this forum with my very strongly held opinions about what is right and wrong as I am in any other part of my life. I don't think I would be wrong to say that most people view me as easy going, mild mannered, dependable, law abiding, and a decent and good neighbor. I don't smoke, drink, or cheat on my wife. I have always worked, showed up on time for work, always paid my taxes which are plenty, and have never spent even an hour in jail. I believe strongly in capitalism, freedom, and liberty, and the constitution. I resent politicians that do not believe strongly in those same principles, such as freedom, liberty, self reliance, and the constitution. And yes, I express those opinions about politics in accord with the above, I freely admit to that, and I oppose liberalism which I believe is attempting to take our country down the wrong road. I spent my time as did millions of others in the military to protect this country, so I strongly believe I have a right to express my heart felt opinions here. And I think that is balanced and correct, and far from extreme.

One last comment, I actually think that the country has moved away from what is most balanced, which is conservative. I think it has moved away from its conservatism more toward the liberal end of the spectrum, and therein lies much of the problem in terms of why we are having the problems we are having right now. Our politicians are merely a mirror of ourselves and our culture, and if our leaders or politicians are not acting responsibly, such as spending way too much, it is a reflection of ourselves and the deep seated problems that we have as a people and as a culture.

2 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

I am serious. I think being very conservative is very balanced and correct.

You don't even have to read any further than this to see how crazy your ideas are, Okie. Conservatism can't be on one end of the political spectrum AND 'balanced' at the same time. The two positions are not compatible.

What you are trying to say is that you are a Conservative, and Conservative positions are the right ones, in your opinion. You fall back on 'balanced' because you're smart enough to know that it sounds better than just admitting the truth, which is that you are NOT balanced.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Okie, you are a "Righty" and therefore "Evil", according to Plainoldme.

Of course you are "not viewed as human or deserving of having an opinion."

I told you all, she's bat-****-crazy and not worth your time.

maporsche, you seem to be right, proven over and over almost every day. I guess I have a weakness, that of never giving up, even on pom. And I guess she still intrigues me as sort of a curiosity or example of an extreme liberal, as I continue to try to figure her out and how she evolved into such a wild mix of liberal opinions. In other words, I keep asking myself, can she be serious, and where in the world did she come up with that? Maybe at some point I will finally have to just conclude as you did a long time ago, it isn't worth our time to try to talk sense to her.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
I am serious. I think being very conservative is very balanced and correct.

You don't even have to read any further than this to see how crazy your ideas are, Okie. Conservatism can't be on one end of the political spectrum AND 'balanced' at the same time. The two positions are not compatible.

What you are trying to say is that you are a Conservative, and Conservative positions are the right ones, in your opinion. You fall back on 'balanced' because you're smart enough to know that it sounds better than just admitting the truth, which is that you are NOT balanced.

Cycloptichorn

This is a great illustration of what I have alluded to in regard to liberals and moderates. Many liberals claim to be moderates, when they are clearly liberal. The point I am making to you is that conservatives are no different than liberals, we all believe we are correct and balanced, but almost all conservatives that I know, including myself, will call ourselves conservative, and we are more than happy to explain way, and we are not ashamed of it.

Often, I think claiming officially to be moderate is a copout from taking a position one way or the other. I do not do that, I am always glad and anxious to say that I am a conservative. Does that mean that I think being conservative is not being balanced and moderate on many issues, no of course not. I believe being conservative is the most reasonable and balanced approach to any issue, but I do not classify myself as a moderate on the political spectrum.

I hope this clarifies this for you, cyclops.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
I am serious. I think being very conservative is very balanced and correct.

You don't even have to read any further than this to see how crazy your ideas are, Okie. Conservatism can't be on one end of the political spectrum AND 'balanced' at the same time. The two positions are not compatible.

What you are trying to say is that you are a Conservative, and Conservative positions are the right ones, in your opinion. You fall back on 'balanced' because you're smart enough to know that it sounds better than just admitting the truth, which is that you are NOT balanced.

Cycloptichorn

This is a great illustration of what I have alluded to in regard to liberals and moderates. Many liberals claim to be moderates, when they are clearly liberal. The point I am making to you is that conservatives are no different than liberals, we all believe we are correct and balanced, but almost all conservatives that I know, including myself, will call ourselves conservative, and we are more than happy to explain way, and we are not ashamed of it.

Often, I think claiming officially to be moderate is a copout from taking a position one way or the other. I do not do that, I am always glad and anxious to say that I am a conservative.

Well, I think that is true, too - that is why I describe myself as a Liberal, or sometimes Progressive.

I just think that claiming you are 'balanced' is like Fox News claiming that they are 'fair and balanced.' It's obviously not true. I don't begrudge you for holding your positions, that's your right to do of course, but don't pretend they are middle-of-the-road ones.

Everyone wants to think that most everyone else thinks like they do...

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I just think that claiming you are 'balanced' is like Fox News claiming that they are 'fair and balanced.' It's obviously not true. I don't begrudge you for holding your positions, that's your right to do of course, but don't pretend they are middle-of-the-road ones.

Everyone wants to think that most everyone else thinks like they do...

Cycloptichorn

That was precisely my point, cyclops, I also do not like it when liberals try to pretend they are middle of the road. I was simply asking for honesty.

Actually, in regard to Fox, I share your concern about that advertising byline "Fair and Balanced." I have long thought they would be far better off to cut that line out, and simply walk the walk instead. I think they are more fair and balanced than most other networks, but I would rather simply judge them on their performance instead of hearing that line every day over and over.

1 Reply

I am Conservative. Where are you?

LEFTISM~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.[/white]RIGHTISM
communism nazism fascism socialism statism democratism conservatism libertarianism anarchism

3 Replies

@ican711nm,

Conservative as you are, ican, and I also favor a Representative Republic form of government. I also recognize the fact that in order for our Representative Republic to survive, we need to have enough conservative voters to vote responsibly, otherwise a degenerating culture will eventually elect more and more ultra liberals or radical leftists to government through the democratic process, and at some point we could very well lose our freedoms if we vote our freedoms away. I think we are in fact seeing some of that happen right before our eyes, so it is incumbent upon the people to see the light and reverse the trend in coming elections.

1 Reply

Eric Odom wrote:

Engaged to Enraged: Tea Party Backers Explain Why

You'll want to read the entire piece, as our part begins about halfway down. But one of the most important paragraphs in the piece is below.

"This is very long-term for us," says Odom. "What is our ultimate goal? To make sure that we're represented by people who are looking out for our rights and upholding the Constitution. ... And, if they don't, to make sure we have infrastructure to really take them out rather than have these thugs that are in there for 30, 40 years."

The Tea Party Movement has had some significant success already this year. Most expect us to see a lot more as the election cycle unfolds.

But we think the movement should be very careful not to become lackadaisical in our success... going back to ignoring politics once we win in our home districts.

This is where we lost control, in my opinion. This is where we let Government grow at its own pace, with no consequences to bad decisions.

It's our hope that we not only engage during the electoral cycle, but follow it up with infrastructure geared towards holding politicians accountable once elected.

I hope you'll join me in helping make this happen!

0 Replies

@okie,

First of all, your post telling me that people are dishonest was apples to oranges.

Second, you definitions are wholly unique. You won't even accept that they are unique!

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know