PDA

View Full Version : pubs/conservatives



SanJoaquinSooner
7/7/2010, 01:22 AM
Pubs/Conservatives are a funny lot, and sometimes their own worst enemies. Take, for example, Senator Harry Reid’s opponent, Republican Sharron Angle – who said folks receiving unemployment benefits are too lazy to get serious about looking for a new job so she would vote against extending these benefits. She says they ain’t gonna try hard to get a job until the benefits expire. Now we all know she’s telling the truth, but sometimes the truth serum pubs drink doesn’t endear them politically.

Then there’s Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who made an inarticulate statement that led some to believe she was claiming a majority of those crossing the border without inspection are drug mules. Even border patrol agents said that is ridiculous. What she really meant was that a majority of those crossing illegally are under the direction of the drug cartels (not that a majority actually carry drugs). Now that may be close to the truth.

By quadrupling the funding for border security, making it much more difficult to cross over the last decade, it’s been the drug cartels who have stepped up to become the free market capitalists expanding into the human smuggling industry. They have the resources to pay the bribes to get them across. You can thank the “secure the border” crowd for this.

And apparently, the drug cartels may be the only free market capitalists left standing – because the cultural conservatives of the republican party have more in common with Soviet Union bureaucrats than they do with Milton Friedman.

Conservatives used to differentiate themselves from the left by believing that property rights and commerce (freedom of association) are natural rights of man. As Ben Franklin said, “Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature”

But now, many conservatives identify more with Karl Marx’s concern with workers’ rights than they do with free markets. Free markets of goods, services, and labor are fundamental to freedom. One cannot sustain political freedom without economic freedom. A restrictive worker visa policy effectively allows government licensing of labor. Employers should have the FREEDOM to determine who they believe is most qualified, not the government. Government should be a servant to those who create wealth. Affirmative action for the lazy folks Harry Reid’s opponent was talking about is what some conservatives are fighting for.

Some of the most ridiculous proposals come from conservatives, like “they can hire those presently unemployed, on welfare, and maybe make use of prisoners.” Get serious. Is that any way to run a business? You hire the most unproductive folks in the community? Try getting a business loan on that business plan, “I’m going to help the community by hiring all the dysfunctional people out there.”


It’s a shame many conservatives stopped believing in merit and bought into affirmative action. It's a shame many stopped believing in the free flow of capital. Restricting the flow of capital didn't work out too well for the Soviet Union.

Now with respect to property rights, which used to be cherished by conservatives, the new Arizona law does something quite amazing. Trespassing used to mean being present on private property without the owner's permission. But the new law redefines trespassing as someone being present on private property without the government’s permission. Admit it, you guys are turning into communists. You’ve bought into the elimination of the traditional American definition of private property and substituted a new collectivist one.

It’s really quite sad, as your argument has fallen to “…but the welfare state can’t handle all these people.” Well,….


FIGHT TO GET RID OF THE WELFARE STATE. GROW A PAIR and START ACTING LIKE A REAL CONSERVATIVES INSTEAD OF WORKING TO PRESERVE THE WELFARE STATE! FIGHT FOR FREEDOM! FREE MARKETS ARE THE ONLY WAY TO END THE WELFARE STATE!

Collier11
7/7/2010, 02:04 AM
you lost me when you lumped every single one of us into a single category

Leroy Lizard
7/7/2010, 02:13 AM
By quadrupling the funding for border security, making it much more difficult to cross over the last decade, it’s been the drug cartels who have stepped up to become the free market capitalists expanding into the human smuggling industry. They have the resources to pay the bribes to get them across. You can thank the “secure the border” crowd for this.

No, we thank the drug cartel and those that allow themselves to be bribed.

We outlawed theft, but the law is not to blame for the crime. The criminal is to blame.


And apparently, the drug cartels may be the only free market capitalists left standing – because the cultural conservatives of the republican party have more in common with Soviet Union bureaucrats than they do with Milton Friedman.

Drug cartels are not free market capitalists. Nothing in free market capitalism dictates that you shoot anyone that opposes you. That is hardly a model of fair competition.

Seriously, you can't distinguish between a rational economic model and organized crime? WTF?

The rest of your argument is no more sensible. Retaining rights for citizens is not affirmative action, and no amount of freakazoid logic will make it so.

But if you want to play this game, I'll go along with it. Ban all public schooling and allow wealthy politicians to bribe voters. That's free market. After all, if I want to give $1,000 to Ole Hank for him to vote for me, that's between Ole Hank and me. If you don't like it, pony up $2,000 and you might get his vote instead. And if I give the local judge a gold watch, I would expect him to look away in case I get busted for a DUI. That's just a little business deal between the judge and me. Free market!!! (Kinda' sounds like what happens in a lot of socialist countries.)


Some of the most ridiculous proposals come from conservatives, like “they can hire those presently unemployed, on welfare, and maybe make use of prisoners.” Get serious. Is that any way to run a business? You hire the most unproductive folks in the community? Try getting a business loan on that business plan, “I’m going to help the community by hiring all the dysfunctional people out there.”

It’s a shame many conservatives stopped believing in merit and bought into affirmative action. It's a shame many stopped believing in the free flow of capital. Restricting the flow of capital didn't work out too well for the Soviet Union.

Now with respect to property rights, which used to be cherished by conservatives, the new Arizona law does something quite amazing. Trespassing used to mean being present on private property without the owner's permission. But the new law redefines trespassing as someone being present on private property without the government’s permission.

Admit it, you guys are turning into communists. You’ve bought into the elimination of the traditional American definition of private property and substituted a new collectivist one.

It’s really quite sad, as your argument has fallen to “…but the welfare state can’t handle all these people.” Well,….


FIGHT TO GET RID OF THE WELFARE STATE. GROW A PAIR and START ACTING LIKE A REAL CONSERVATIVES INSTEAD OF WORKING TO PRESERVE THE WELFARE STATE! FIGHT FOR FREEDOM! FREE MARKETS ARE THE ONLY WAY TO END THE WELFARE STATE!

Okay, here's a proposal for you. You might like this; you might not.

1. Allow any worker that wants to work come across the border.
2. Allow his employer to pay him as low as he wants. (The worker can always go work for someone else; it's a free market.)
3. No free medical emergency care. If their kid breaks a leg, they have to pony up the money for the doctor or no treatment. (Free market, after all.)
4. No free schooling. If they want their kids educated, make them pay tuition. Gotta' keep it a free market, and there is no room in a free market for forcing taxpayers to purchase services for other people.
5. Allow children to work of all ages. If I want to pay a 12-year-old to haul toxic fertilizers, then that's a business deal between the family and me.
6. No licensing. If I want to pay a migrant to drive a taxi, that's a business decision on my part. If my customers think the added savings are worth the safety risk, fine. They can vote with their feet, after all.

Okay, there you have it. Sound good?



you lost me when you lumped every single one of us into a single category

He lost me after his third shot of bourbon.

ndpruitt03
7/7/2010, 02:14 AM
I don't think I'll ever receive a benefit from the government or at least I will try not to. The government doesn't need to help me. I don't see the point of it. I don't need the governments help. The government should be worried about making it easier to hire people like me that wants to buy everything I want with my own money. Not get hand outs from a government. You realize we didn't really have any government hand outs till the last 60 or 70 years or so. We went almost 150 years in this countries history without many real government hand outs. Why does everyone have to have them now. Even look at health care. Nobody really had that till recently either.

The way the government has created wealth in the history of this country is to let the capitalist system work it's own magic and stay out of the economy. Every time the government has gotten into fixing the economy such as the 1910s under Wilson when he introduced the Fed, put in a high tax rate. The economy fell apart. In the 20s Harding and Coolige tried to undo Wilson's disaster by cutting taxes, cutting spending, led to the roaring 20s. They basically stayed out of the economy for a decade and we had one of the best decades in this countries history. Then in the 1930s with Hoover trying to put money into fixing the economy and then the New Deal which was just Hoover on Steroids we got the great depression out of it. The next big spender was Carter in the late 70s and it took about 2 years to recover from his policies.

Even in this decade there is an example of how cutting taxes worked with the Bush Tax cuts leading to about 5 years of economic growth. Other tax cuts that worked. Kennedy's in the 60s which were put in under LBJ after JFK died but those worked. And of course Reagan's in the 80s worked. But they didn't really cut spending during these times so it wasn't as sustained as it was for the 20s.

Every time we've tried to be big spenders in the US we've had bad economies. Usually the next group cuts spending or taxes less or both and we get prosperous periods. Hopefully that happens with the next group of politicians. But I don't know if the republicans can do that because they started this spending. They didn't spend like the democrats have the last few years but they started all of this spending. But I don't really care if we get democrats or republicans as long as they don't spend like they have or we won't have a government that will be able to fund anything by the 2020s.

SanJoaquinSooner
7/7/2010, 09:14 AM
Lizard wrote: Retaining rights for citizens is not affirmative action, and no amount of freakazoid logic will make it so.

In your own profession, citizens do not retain the right to be hired over more qualified foreigners. ...as it should be for other professions.

Yes, it is affirmative action. There is no "citizen's right to a job." There is supposed to be a freedom of association so that citizens may freely participate in commerce, including starting one's own business.

SanJoaquinSooner
7/7/2010, 09:22 AM
Lizard wrote:
Drug cartels are not free market capitalists. Nothing in free market capitalism dictates that you shoot anyone that opposes you. That is hardly a model of fair competition.

Seriously, you can't distinguish between a rational economic model and organized crime? WTF?

Now Lizard, don't take my hyperbole so seriously.

But what is serious and you cannot deny: The quadrupling of border security resources over the last decade did not slow illegal immigration but did slow the numbers who return to their country of origin. Circular migration became too expense.


Just like with the days of prohibition, the laws of supply and demand were not repealed.

The only thing that has slowed it, has been a severe recession.

delhalew
7/7/2010, 09:41 AM
Juan apparently doesn't know what a convervative is...don't feel bad Juan. A majority of republicans don't know conservatism from their ******* either.

Position Limit
7/7/2010, 11:00 AM
since when do republicans know anything about capitalism? dying political party. they've gotten it wrong for the last 40 years.

Leroy Lizard
7/7/2010, 11:37 AM
In your own profession, citizens do not retain the right to be hired over more qualified foreigners.

This isn't about citizenship, but legal residence. Profs do have a right to be hired over illegal aliens. To be hired as a prof, you have to show legal residence.

To call that affirmative action is nothing more than resorting to emotional language.

Leroy Lizard
7/7/2010, 11:41 AM
Lizard wrote:

Now Lizard, don't take my hyperbole so seriously.

It wasn't hyperbole; it was just a stupid thing to say.


But what is serious and you cannot deny: The quadrupling of border security resources over the last decade did not slow illegal immigration but did slow the numbers who return to their country of origin.

You pro-illegals need to get your story straight. Your side claims that illegal immigration has slowed considerably when arguing that Arizona didn't need to pass the law.

picasso
7/7/2010, 12:14 PM
Dude get over yourself. Both sides are goofy and hypocritical.

SicEmBaylor
7/7/2010, 12:57 PM
Juan apparently doesn't know what a convervative is...don't feel bad Juan. A majority of republicans don't know conservatism from their ******* either.

This!

SanJoaquinSooner
7/8/2010, 01:35 AM
Collier11 you lost me when you lumped every single one of us into a single category

My apologies collier, you are correct. Conservatives do have differing opinions on some issues. But it was all in good fun. As mentioned in past threads, there is a growing conservative evangelical movement to act on immigration reform.



July 7, 2010

Some prominent conservatives are speaking out in favor of the kind of comprehensive immigration bill that many Republicans oppose — one that would include border security and then a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

As a leading evangelical conservative, Richard Land's credentials are impeccable. He heads the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, and from that influential perch he's been urging his fellow conservatives to rethink their opposition to the immigration overhaul.


"I've had some of them appeal to me. They say, 'Richard, you're going to divide the conservative coalition.' And I said, 'Well, I may divide the old conservative coalition, but I'm not going to divide the new one.' "

Land adds, "If the new conservative coalition is going to be a governing coalition, it's going to have to have a significant number of Hispanics in it, that's dictated by demographics, and you don't get large numbers of Hispanics to support you when you're engaged in anti-Hispanic immigration rhetoric."

Last week, when President Obama gave his speech on immigration, Land was in the audience. In fact, he had urged the president to make the speech. Obama called on both parties to rise above petty politics to fix the country's broken immigration system.

Land says that will be very hard because, for both parties, there's a short-term political advantage to doing nothing.

"Democrats, because it scares Hispanics, who can vote, into voting for them, and they can convince them that the Republicans are anti-Hispanic. And Republicans, because they look at these polls that show that 70 percent of Americans support the Arizona law, and they say, 'You know, we can win with this in November.' And my argument is: Politicians think about the next election; statesmen think about the next generation."

But even if Republicans are thinking only of the next election, or the next few elections, Land says, the lessons of history should compel them to think again.

"The people who have been anti-immigration have lost every one of these arguments," he says. "They lost it with the Irish in the 1830s and '40s and turned them into Democrats for three generations. They lost it with the Italians in the 1890s and the early part of the 20th century and turned the Italians into Democrats for three generations. I mean, you know, do they want to do it with the Hispanics too?"

Arizona state Sen. Jonathan Paton, one of the Republicans running for Congress in the 8th district, voted for the immigration law in the state legislature. He says he's more concerned with the survival of his state than the survival of the Republican party.

As for the federal government, he says, "We're not asking for more laws — we're asking for them to enforce the laws they already have, and to take that seriously."

He says people who are in the U.S. illegally "absolutely" should be arrested and deported. And if he's elected to the U.S. Congress, Paton says, he knows how he will vote on immigration: "I can't vote for anything that would give a path of citizenship for those who would come into the country illegally."


Despite the arguments of conservatives like Richard Land or former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, that is the bottom line for most Republicans in Congress, says Texas Sen. John Cornyn.


"That's what causes so much heartburn on the right," Cornyn says. "Because that is viewed as tantamount to amnesty, which is of course a radioactive term."

Cornyn, who says 30 percent of his constituents are Hispanic, represents what could be called the middle of the internal Republican debate on immigration. He says he too is for comprehensive immigration legislation — he just doesn't want it to include a pathway to citizenship. He's intrigued by the idea of other forms of legalization — maybe a permanent green card for undocumented workers, who pay a fine or plead guilty to a misdemeanor.


"It wouldn't satisfy the left because they want these folks to be on a path to citizenship," Cornyn says. "They'd obviously like them to register to vote, and they'd like to gain the electoral advantage by adding them to their column. I think it would be one way to try to thread the needle."

But before Cornyn gets a chance to test his theory about the motives of his Democratic opponents, he and other Republicans will have to resolve their own debate about immigration, and what they want to happen after the border is secured: deportation, legalization or citizenship.

That's a debate that will take several years to resolve, and right now it's being obscured by the legal drama of the United States v. Arizona.

Leroy Lizard
7/8/2010, 01:41 AM
Last week, when President Obama gave his speech on immigration, Land was in the audience. In fact, he had urged the president to make the speech. Obama called on both parties to rise above petty politics to fix the country's broken immigration system.

He always urges everyone to rise above petty politics, then he resorts to petty politics himself when the going gets tough.

SanJoaquinSooner
7/8/2010, 01:54 AM
Juan apparently doesn't know what a convervative is...don't feel bad Juan. A majority of republicans don't know conservatism from their ******* either.

Do you consider Milton Friedman to have been a conservative?

ndpruitt03
7/8/2010, 02:25 AM
The problem with conservatism now is that is extinct in the government. Especially the Senate. Even the republicans in the senate basically are only against democrats because they are democrats not because of what they do. Hell they basically do what the republicans were doing except on steroids. I'm not sure they are really against the democrats because of what they do because the repubs were spending also. They weren't being conservative under Bush. Before Bush I would say they were conservatives.

I don't really get how democrats can hate on Bush then like Obama because Obama is basically Bush on Steroids. You have to hate both or hate neither to me.

delhalew
7/8/2010, 10:00 AM
Do you consider Milton Friedman to have been a conservative?

He opposes Keynesian economics and the Federal Reserve, but he considers himself a libertarian. Even with that, the key to Conservatism is fighting the growth and centralization of a federal gub'ment that can't help but be oppressive to people it can't hope to accurately represent. It's unclear how deep his feelings go on that subject.
As an example, when the colonies consisted of about 13 million people, our founders knew that the people could not be represented by a centralized gub'ment. Thus all the focus on states rights. The states are supposed to be incubators of good ideas and insulators against bad ideas.
So how are 300 million supposed to be governed from Washington? The 17th amendment had the unintended consequence of nationalizing state elections. The FED is unconstitutional. I could go on forever, but THAT is Conservatism.

MR2-Sooner86
7/8/2010, 12:07 PM
Admit it, you guys are turning into communists.

Some people wouldn't know conservatism if it bit them in the ***.

I am a conservative and I am NOT for the violent overthrow of capitalism. I'm NOT like Trekkies who see communism as awesomely perfect.

**** it, Anarchy FTW!

Chuck Bao
7/8/2010, 01:13 PM
I remember back in the late 80s and early 90s that some economists were talking about the ability to manage the economy to a degree that would lessen and shorten the economic cycles and provide for sustained long-term economic growth. Sounds wonderful, doesn't it?

So what happened? Our politicians? Markets over-reacting? Greed? New technology and further lowering of the economic value of labor?

I used to be a Republican, a Reagan Republican. And, I have a lot of love for the Tea Party Republicans and their focus on fiscal responsibility. But, this is not the time for that and their arguments smack of politics rather than economics. Shouldn't we expand government spending during periods of economic downturn, like now? Shouldn't we cut back on spending and tax more during periods of economic boom?

When we had our last economic boom, who actually was saying that we have to limit government spending and raise taxes? Nobody that I'm aware of.

Instead, a huge about of money, largely hard-earned life savings of the average working Joe, went into the stock market, which is definitely not a bad thing. That is except greed took over and that sheer weight of money flowed into Wall Street with the global markets basically run by a bunch of cowboys. Markets were destabilized and volatility was considered good. Company managements that didn't produce the expected quarterly results by cutting costs and sending jobs overseas were punished. For Wall Street traders, there was no responsibility.

So forget about economic management and stability. I still don't see anyone but cowboys running the show. That's why I am not a Republican.

delhalew
7/8/2010, 01:28 PM
I remember back in the late 80s and early 90s that some economists were talking about the ability to manage the economy to a degree that would lessen and shorten the economic cycles and provide for sustained long-term economic growth. Sounds wonderful, doesn't it?

So what happened? Our politicians? Markets over-reacting? Greed? New technology and further lowering of the economic value of labor?

I used to be a Republican, a Reagan Republican. And, I have a lot of love for the Tea Party Republicans and their focus on fiscal responsibility. But, this is not the time for that and their arguments smack of politics rather than economics. Shouldn't we expand government spending during periods of economic downturn, like now? Shouldn't we cut back on spending and tax more during periods of economic boom?

When we had our last economic boom, who actually was saying that we have to limit government spending and raise taxes? Nobody that I'm aware of.

Instead, a huge about of money, largely hard-earned life savings of the average working Joe, went into the stock market, which is definitely not a bad thing. That is except greed took over and that sheer weight of money flowed into Wall Street with the global markets basically run by a bunch of cowboys. Markets were destabilized and volatility was considered good. Company managements that didn't produce the expected quarterly results by cutting costs and sending jobs overseas were punished. For Wall Street traders, there was no responsibility.

So forget about economic management and stability. I still don't see anyone but cowboys running the show. That's why I am not a Republican.

I'll never understand this. Which is worse. A party that tells you they are looking out for corporate interests, because this policy makes everyone fat and happy(may be true, may not be), or a party that cloaks every movement for further gub'ment control of your life in a false desire to take care of you, to look out for the working man, to sheppard the minorities. All of this while exploiting every downtrodden group they claim to protect. Indeed, to keep them down, to keep them dependent. This is the most disgusting lie of all. No one who wants to perpetuate an infrastructure of American weakness will ever get my support again. Tell me up front you believe greed is good. Because you are all greedy. Just don't tell me it's raining, when your pissing down my back.

soonervegas
7/8/2010, 02:18 PM
Dems = Welfare state

Repubs = Corporate welfare

When you vote all you are doing is deciding where your money is getting funneled to at this point, with the sole goal of buying votes.

It's the perfect setup. The middle class is too comfortable to mount any serious outrage. Why fight the system when their is a new flat screen at Wal Mart that will make your neighbors jealous?

Chuck Bao
7/8/2010, 02:34 PM
I'll never understand this. Which is worse. A party that tells you they are looking out for corporate interests, because this policy makes everyone fat and happy(may be true, may not be), or a party that cloaks every movement for further gub'ment control of your life in a false desire to take care of you, to look out for the working man, to sheppard the minorities. All of this while exploiting every downtrodden group they claim to protect. Indeed, to keep them down, to keep them dependent. This is the most disgusting lie of all. No one who wants to perpetuate an infrastructure of American weakness will ever get my support again. Tell me up front you believe greed is good. Because you are all greedy. Just don't tell me it's raining, when your pissing down my back.

Dude! I am so willing to agree with you. But, you got to make it real. You went there on social issues and I would rather stay away from that for obivous reasons.

Gub'ment controling your life? Are you serious? Republicans campaign on fear and hate. It's just so ugly. Family values mean exactly what to you?

You obviously are not part of the religious right crowd. But, the welfare queens and all of the often emailed celebrated cases, seem to get you all riled up.

I am not a Republican because those know-it-alls are pretending that I know nothing and I'm bogus. Probably I am stupid. I just don't like people telling me that.

ndpruitt03
7/8/2010, 02:38 PM
I think the democrats are the ones campaigning on fear and hate right now. They are basically saying their policies and everything that has happened the last 2 year is because of the last parties fault. The republicans have basically been irrelevant since 06.

delhalew
7/8/2010, 04:12 PM
Dude! I am so willing to agree with you. But, you got to make it real. You went there on social issues and I would rather stay away from that for obivous reasons.

Gub'ment controling your life? Are you serious? Republicans campaign on fear and hate. It's just so ugly. Family values mean exactly what to you?

You obviously are not part of the religious right crowd. But, the welfare queens and all of the often emailed celebrated cases, seem to get you all riled up.

I am not a Republican because those know-it-alls are pretending that I know nothing and I'm bogus. Probably I am stupid. I just don't like people telling me that.

See I don't buy that narrative of fear and hate. That is the touchy feelies taking someone talking about making tough choices and crucifying them. Just look at this forum. The world is not fair. The closest to fairness we can get is for everyone to play by the same rules. Not saying pubs stick to this. That's why I am an independent conservative. Old style little republican style.
As soon as you talk about conservative principles, the lib/progressive spin machine labels you racist, homophobe, greedy, and you kick puppies. Now that is hate and fear. Luckily, I'm immune to it, these "teabaggers" ya'll love to hate are evidence that the nation is waking up to the hate and fear and especially intolerence of the left.

Leroy Lizard
7/8/2010, 04:13 PM
It's en vogue right now to claim you are in the middle and that both parties are corrupt and that neither party looks after the average Joe and that no solutions will ever appear until both parties change to your way of thinking (which is almost impossible to ascertain). While those in the middle liken themselves to rebels, I think they come across as chicken-hearted.

The battle cry of the middle-of-the-road conformist: "I used to be a (insert name of political party). But the party changed since (former or current president) took over and left me behind."

The answer to any specific issue up to vote: "The problem is with the political parties involved. They have turned the debate into a political issue..."

This all translates to: "I have no spine to hold up to criticism for being decisive. If asked to make a decision on abortion, for example, I will punt by complaining about the political process itself. I don't want to look like a liberal wienie but I also don't want to look like a heartless conservative."

Sorry, but I had to say it.

delhalew
7/8/2010, 04:24 PM
I'm so far to the right I scare republicans. Of course, if we weren't so weak today, the principles we were founded under would be so frightening to us.

ndpruitt03
7/8/2010, 05:08 PM
Here's what the fear and hate thing is about with the democrats.


http://lonelyconservative.com/2010/07/robert-gibbs-spars-with-reporter-rather-than-answer-berwick-question/

Who cares what Paul Ryan said. He probably was saying that this bill will lead to redistribution and rationing. But he's against the bill. He could have picked any republican and just used it as hate speech

Here is our new medicare/medicade director in his own words.

rGHGEs3us98

What Gibbs was doing was simply deflecting and ignoring.

SanJoaquinSooner
7/8/2010, 06:55 PM
He opposes Keynesian economics and the Federal Reserve, but he considers himself a libertarian. Even with that, the key to Conservatism is fighting the growth and centralization of a federal gub'ment that can't help but be oppressive to people it can't hope to accurately represent. It's unclear how deep his feelings go on that subject.
As an example, when the colonies consisted of about 13 million people, our founders knew that the people could not be represented by a centralized gub'ment. Thus all the focus on states rights. The states are supposed to be incubators of good ideas and insulators against bad ideas.
So how are 300 million supposed to be governed from Washington? The 17th amendment had the unintended consequence of nationalizing state elections. The FED is unconstitutional. I could go on forever, but THAT is Conservatism.

delhalew,

1. You don't seem sure if Milton Friedman warranted a conservative label.

But it's clear states rights and a limited federal gov't are at the heart of your definition of conservative. I'm wondering, though, if that is a useful definition when trying to partition a set of individuals into examples and nonexamples, or at least applying it to place individuals on a conservative continuum. For example, how does your definition apply to {Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Colombian President Álvaro Uribe, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn}? I doubt Thatcher spent much time mourning over the Articles of Confederation.

2. You claim that you are so far right that you scare Republicans. Do you find Norman OK and the University appealing places to visit or live? During the 12 years I lived there, I found it to be a bit of a liberal oasis.

delhalew
7/8/2010, 07:54 PM
delhalew,

1. You don't seem sure if Milton Friedman warranted a conservative label.

But it's clear states rights and a limited federal gov't are at the heart of your definition of conservative. I'm wondering, though, if that is a useful definition when trying to partition a set of individuals into examples and nonexamples, or at least applying it to place individuals on a conservative continuum. For example, how does your definition apply to {Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Colombian President Álvaro Uribe, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn}? I doubt Thatcher spent much time mourning over the Articles of Confederation.

2. You claim that you are so far right that you scare Republicans. Do you find Norman OK and the University appealing places to visit or live? During the 12 years I lived there, I found it to be a bit of a liberal oasis.

1. This doesn't have to work for anyone but myself. Despite the fact that many agree with me, this is my idea of conservatism. Really it's just Paleo-Conservatism. The key is a desire to dismantle Leviathon, believing a gub'ment this bloated CANNOT represent the people. What's more, they have no desire to represent the people. Also, a recognition that we are granted certain individual rights. When these are made to be collective right, you find no person really has any rights. The people you named are strong Conservatives, but alas, no one is perfect. Reagan comes to mind. He realized you have a cabinet for a reason. Some led him away from Conservatism. Most interesting was the way he had to deal with the Cold War. A more Conservative approach likely would have failed. He had to embrace the military-industrial complex. It allowed him to negotiate from a position of power and sapp the resources of the USSR. Much the same way JFK did with the space race. A conservative would say that was useful for national security, but after the moon landing NASA should be privatized.
2.I love Norman. I love it so much I stayed for a couple years after I left school. I only left because I owed it to myself to see everything I could.
When I was young, despite my upbringing, I ran the gamut from liberalism to anarchist. It took a long time to deprogram myself. Thank God I'm a self educator. I now know some of those ideas floating in my head were fascist.
Long story short, I fit in fine. I would fit in fine today because Norman is a wonderful place. Lefties for me now range between humorous and pathetic. I am still friends with some uber lefties(very few), who are actually very intelligent. I like to have political discussions with them because I don't get talking points or indoctrination pea soup.

ndpruitt03
7/8/2010, 08:01 PM
I think some of the left wingers would be very offended that you called liberal ideas fascist but that is probably the closest thing you can call our current form of government or where it's going. Fascism just like socialism is a left wing ideology no matter what people say. Both want more bloated government.

delhalew
7/8/2010, 08:09 PM
I think some of the left wingers would be very offended that you called liberal ideas fascist but that is probably the closest thing you can call our current form of government or where it's going. Fascism just like socialism is a left wing ideology no matter what people say. Both want more bloated government.

Those fascist ideas were born of my "liberal" principles.
Take health care. As soon as you descide to FORCE people to do the right thing...you are a fascist.

Yes I know it's more complicated than that. It's like the dark side of the force. Fear leads to anger anger leads to hate hate leads to suffering:D

SicEmBaylor
7/8/2010, 09:05 PM
But it's clear states rights and a limited federal gov't are at the heart of your definition of conservative. I'm wondering, though, if that is a useful definition when trying to partition a set of individuals into examples and nonexamples, or at least applying it to place individuals on a conservative continuum. For example, how does your definition apply to {Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Colombian President Álvaro Uribe, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn}? I doubt Thatcher spent much time mourning over the Articles of Confederation.


I figured you were smarter than this, but I clearly way the hell over-estimated you. Conservatism is not a universal/international standard of principles. Conservatism is completely different depending on the country/society in question. You can't apply conservative American principles to say...Great Britain, France, Uganda, China, etc. The basis of conservatism is the preservation of a society or nation's customs, political institutions, culture, etc. Since every nation has a different set of those, conservatism is going to mean different things. Trying to apply our conservative principles to British Toryism is asinine. Now, there are a lot of similarities between British conservatism and our own because we share a common heritage but there are many many differences.

This is a point that I've made around these parts until I'm blue in the face. American conservatism is ideological because it has a set of principles/manifesto in which to rally around (The nation's founding documents), but conservatism in general is NOT ideological. It's not, for example, like Marxism which contain a specific set of universal principles that are not dependent upon any particular nation or its political customs/heritage.

ndpruitt03
7/8/2010, 09:25 PM
People are starting to grow up today thinking the European way which sees Fascism as the right and Socialism/communism as the left on the political aisle. But America is completely different because it was found on small federal government.

delhalew
7/8/2010, 09:29 PM
I figured you were smarter than this, but I clearly way the hell over-estimated you. Conservatism is not a universal/international standard of principles. Conservatism is completely different depending on the country/society in question. You can't apply conservative American principles to say...Great Britain, France, Uganda, China, etc. The basis of conservatism is the preservation of a society or nation's customs, political institutions, culture, etc. Since every nation has a different set of those, conservatism is going to mean different things. Trying to apply our conservative principles to British Toryism is asinine. Now, there are a lot of similarities between British conservatism and our own because we share a common heritage but there are many many differences.

This is a point that I've made around these parts until I'm blue in the face. American conservatism is ideological because it has a set of principles/manifesto in which to rally around (The nation's founding documents), but conservatism in general is NOT ideological. It's not, for example, like Marxism which contain a specific set of universal principles that are not dependent upon any particular nation or its political customs/heritage.

This is a good point I didn't feel like trying to articulate. Thanks for that:D

PDXsooner
7/8/2010, 09:31 PM
It's en vogue right now to claim you are in the middle and that both parties are corrupt and that neither party looks after the average Joe and that no solutions will ever appear until both parties change to your way of thinking (which is almost impossible to ascertain). While those in the middle liken themselves to rebels, I think they come across as chicken-hearted.

The battle cry of the middle-of-the-road conformist: "I used to be a (insert name of political party). But the party changed since (former or current president) took over and left me behind."

The answer to any specific issue up to vote: "The problem is with the political parties involved. They have turned the debate into a political issue..."

This all translates to: "I have no spine to hold up to criticism for being decisive. If asked to make a decision on abortion, for example, I will punt by complaining about the political process itself. I don't want to look like a liberal wienie but I also don't want to look like a heartless conservative."

Sorry, but I had to say it.

Ha ha, very VERY off the mark.

SicEmBaylor
7/8/2010, 09:40 PM
This is a good point I didn't feel like trying to articulate. Thanks for that:D

Thanks, and I second every word you said...especially the paleo-con part which warms my otherwise cold conservative heart. ;)

SicEmBaylor
7/8/2010, 09:42 PM
Also, Norman and OU aren't even remotely as liberal as Austin/UT. Austin/UT make Norman/OU look like an Atilla the Hun encampment.

Leroy Lizard
7/8/2010, 10:14 PM
Ha ha, very VERY off the mark.

What an in-depth response. Boy, you sure know how to add to a debate.

Leroy Lizard
7/8/2010, 10:15 PM
Also, Norman and OU aren't even remotely as liberal as Austin/UT. Austin/UT make Norman/OU look like an Atilla the Hun encampment.

Attila was a conservative?

SanJoaquinSooner
7/8/2010, 10:30 PM
I figured you were smarter than this, but I clearly way the hell over-estimated you. Conservatism is not a universal/international standard of principles. Conservatism is completely different depending on the country/society in question. You can't apply conservative American principles to say...Great Britain, France, Uganda, China, etc. The basis of conservatism is the preservation of a society or nation's customs, political institutions, culture, etc. Since every nation has a different set of those, conservatism is going to mean different things. Trying to apply our conservative principles to British Toryism is asinine.

So would a definition of conservatism that cuts across nationalities be something along the lines of ...valuing/advocating/promoting the preservation of one's society's or nation's customs, political institutions, culture, etc. ?

If conservatism is relative to one's own customs and culture, it might be a stretch to have one definition of American conservatism? We might need one for each of the 50 states?

sorry if you overestimated my smartness, Sic, but to me definitions are social constructions.


Here is what Reagan once said:


Governor Reagan, you have been quoted in the press as saying that you’re doing a lot of speaking now on behalf of the philosophy of conservatism and libertarianism. Is there a difference between the two?


REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Leroy Lizard
7/8/2010, 10:51 PM
The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Sorry to disagree with ole' Ronnie Boy, but conservatism does not argue for less government. It argues for more local control of government.

The last thing I want to see is conservatism defined along the lines of "desert hermit" philosophies.

ndpruitt03
7/8/2010, 11:17 PM
During the revolutionary period the liberals were actually the americans because liberalism at that time meant to free people from government oppression so it was a different term than it's become today. The founding fathers loved being called liberals because a liberal meant something completely different. It's been adopted by the progressives of today which hated the classical liberalism from the late 18th century.

ndpruitt03
7/8/2010, 11:23 PM
IT2NpPpNZE8

About 6:20 Stossel gives a good definition on what classic liberals really were.

delhalew
7/8/2010, 11:38 PM
Libertarians seem ok with next to no government. A conservative would say that the government laid out in the founding is just about right. Localized power, independent states, and the language to protect such a system. It seems to me Libertarians would like less gov at every level. As a conservative, I like the idea of protecting interstate commerce(were that clause not so abused) and providing for defense and the ability to protect sovereignty.
Ron was usually very good at vocalizing such things, but no one bats a thousand. I think he just over simplified...maybe he was talking to a liberal.

PDXsooner
7/8/2010, 11:59 PM
It's en vogue right now to claim you are in the middle and that both parties are corrupt and that neither party looks after the average Joe and that no solutions will ever appear until both parties change to your way of thinking (which is almost impossible to ascertain). While those in the middle liken themselves to rebels, I think they come across as chicken-hearted.

The battle cry of the middle-of-the-road conformist: "I used to be a (insert name of political party). But the party changed since (former or current president) took over and left me behind."

The answer to any specific issue up to vote: "The problem is with the political parties involved. They have turned the debate into a political issue..."

This all translates to: "I have no spine to hold up to criticism for being decisive. If asked to make a decision on abortion, for example, I will punt by complaining about the political process itself. I don't want to look like a liberal wienie but I also don't want to look like a heartless conservative."

Sorry, but I had to say it.

It's not en vogue to say both parties are corrupt, it is FACT. And being decisive is great, if you have truly deliberated and considered as many angles as possible before forming an opinion.

What's your message here? Pick a side and run with it so you can be decisive? Because if if you're decisive you've got a backbone? You make no sense sometimes.

SicEmBaylor
7/9/2010, 12:03 AM
Attila was a conservative?

No. I'm just playing off that old saying, "...more right-wing than Atilla the Hun."

SicEmBaylor
7/9/2010, 12:12 AM
So would a definition of conservatism that cuts across nationalities be something along the lines of ...valuing/advocating/promoting the preservation of one's society's or nation's customs, political institutions, culture, etc. ?

Yes, but the individual examples are so varied that they're often contradictory.


If conservatism is relative to one's own customs and culture, it might be a stretch to have one definition of American conservatism? We might need one for each of the 50 states?

Absolutely. In fact, I consider this a key tenant of conservatism. This is why this nation was designed and should continue to be a Federal Republic with ultimate sovereignty residing with the individual states. Each state does have a different heritage from every other state and those differences make for varied social policy that should fit that particular state.

And I completely agree with Reagan, libertarianism is and should be at the heart of conservatism. Now, libertarianism and conservatism certainly are not the same. They're not even akin to siblings, but I'd call them both very very close cousins. Libertarianism lacks conservatism's zeal in preserving social institutions and tradition. Now, it just so happens that those social institutions and traditions are typically designed to maximize freedom which conservatives, by nature, seek to preserve. However, that obviously is not always the case. There are plenty of examples when the conservative falls on the side of preserving his/her sense of an orderly society over liberty (the drug war being an example).

SicEmBaylor
7/9/2010, 12:16 AM
Libertarians seem ok with next to no government. A conservative would say that the government laid out in the founding is just about right. Localized power, independent states, and the language to protect such a system. It seems to me Libertarians would like less gov at every level. As a conservative, I like the idea of protecting interstate commerce(were that clause not so abused) and providing for defense and the ability to protect sovereignty.
Ron was usually very good at vocalizing such things, but no one bats a thousand. I think he just over simplified...maybe he was talking to a liberal.

Yep, they go a little too far at times. I'm probably as close to being libertarian as you can get without jumping totally in the deep-end. I was talking to a LP Party guy once and he wanted to privatize not only local law enforcement but the entire damned military as well. I figured he was just one kook, but I've heard the same suggestion from several of them.

There is clearly a function and purpose for government. Those functions and purposes should be clearly stated (which they are) and restrained (which they are not).

SicEmBaylor
7/9/2010, 12:20 AM
Sorry to disagree with ole' Ronnie Boy, but conservatism does not argue for less government. It argues for more local control of government.

The last thing I want to see is conservatism defined along the lines of "desert hermit" philosophies.

It argues for more local and state control of government because that is the foundational principle of our nation which is embodied in the Constitution which, as written, limits government. You can easily say that conservatism argues for less-government so long as you're talking about less Federal government. What conservatism has ZERO tradition of is arguing for less local/state government although that has become a cause du jour for conservatives at every level.

Leroy Lizard
7/9/2010, 12:28 AM
It argues for more local and state control of government because that is the foundational principle of our nation which is embodied in the Constitution which, as written, limits government. You can easily say that conservatism argues for less-government so long as you're talking about less Federal government. What conservatism has ZERO tradition of is arguing for less local/state government although that has become a cause du jour for conservatives at every level.

Along those lines, we're getting ready to pass a noise ordinance in our community. Play your car stereo too loud; donate to our local schools.

Libertarians would have a hard time with that.

Conservatives? No problem. "Damn whipper-snappers deserve to be fined!"

Liberals? They would consider boomboxes artistic expression, like graffiti.

SicEmBaylor
7/9/2010, 12:29 AM
Along those lines, we're getting ready to pass a noise ordinance in our community. Play your car stereo too loud; donate to our local schools.

Libertarians would have a hard time with that.

Conservatives? No problem. "Damn whipper-snappers deserve to be fined!"

Liberals? They would consider boomboxes artistic expression, like graffiti.

Yep, excellent example. It also illustrates how, despite the claim by conservatives that they want less government/more liberty, when it really comes down to the nitty-gritty they simply want less government when it's convenient. I don't have a problem with the picking and choosing so long as they're honest about it.

Leroy Lizard
7/9/2010, 12:35 AM
Yep, excellent example. It also illustrates how, despite the claim by conservatives that they want less government/more liberty, when it really comes down to the nitty-gritty they simply want less government when it's convenient. I don't have a problem with the picking and choosing so long as they're honest about it.

Conservatives want less federal government. Unfortunately, they oversimplify the slogan. Bumper stickers only have so much space.