restoring Conservatism (ot)

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 1 - 429 of total 429 in this topic
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Topic Author's Original Post - Nov 5, 2008 - 09:39pm PT
Well, my fellow conservatives, we've just been handed a mandate for 'change'. It's begging for more of a return to classic conservative principles. Financial responsibility, smaller gov't, strong military, and a focus on U.S. national needs (less of a global interventionist).

The last one is debatable for me, the others are musts.

Bobby Jindal....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Arid-zona
Nov 5, 2008 - 09:41pm PT
Start making authentic arguments and being willing to compromise where it is good for the country. Marginalizing your opponents as "socialist" (and then believing your own propaganda) clearly didn't work. The tenants of actual conservatism as you describe them above are noble and worthy. They deserve better arguments and champions than they have had these past 15 years.
Brick

Social climber
SF, CA
Nov 5, 2008 - 09:43pm PT
i dunno...

i really don't think we need yet ANOTHER FREAKIN POLITICAL THREAD today

OP, feel free to delete it
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 5, 2008 - 09:47pm PT
HDDJ, let's not forget some of the attacks on Palin/McCain. The whole media slant about Obama being the victim is crap. They attacked McCain/Palin in all directions.

They both slung crap. Obama just let internet/MSM do it. Let's not digress fron the topic though. Conservatives need a younger, smart, conservative who isn't a religious zealot. Someone who's an old school conservative that is willing to tell the country-club Repub's to go fu-k themselves.

Jindal could be that guy. Romney might work too.
Matt

Trad climber
primordial soup
Nov 5, 2008 - 09:48pm PT
re: "Financial responsibility, smaller gov't, strong military, and a focus on U.S. national needs (less of a global interventionist)"


i've got the perfect politician for you pal:























(here's a hint, he looks a lot like a black guy!)








edit-
bluguy, what "crap", exactly, did obama "sling"?

that (both hillary and) mccain had supported the war from the start?
that he'd claimed "the fundamentals of the economy [were] strong"?

and what "crap" did the press "sling"?
that mccain had picked a bimbo instead of a statesman?





just put a cork in it pal, it will be awhile before you are taken seriously by anyone
John Moosie

climber
Beautiful California
Nov 5, 2008 - 09:49pm PT
" Obama just let internet/MSM do it"

Dang dude, you have a hard on for Obama. Sorry, but Obama ran mostly a clean campaign. Saying that other folks did his trash talking is bogus.
The Warbler

climber
the edge of America
Nov 5, 2008 - 09:51pm PT
The military of the United States is plenty strong, and has been for decades. It needs to be used rarely and efficiently when essential.

Conservatives need to stop being so paranoid about being attacked by other countries, like they were about Iraq, and realize that having a strong infrastructure, energy independence, education system and health care system are more important than our ability to "kick ass!!! ".

We need to handle conflicts with other nations through advanced diplomacy, rather than myopic belligerence.

That's where a man like Barack Obama is going to shine.


bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 5, 2008 - 09:51pm PT
Brick, this a thread intended for climbers who'd like to discuss the future of Conservative politics. Conservatives and liberals alike, everybody's welcome.

By posting to a thread you disapprove of, you just bumped it. Congrats.

Also, there was really no other relative thread to post my ideas to so I started a new one....SUE ME!!!!

Why don't you bitch to t*r for starting stupid threads she could have avoided..."I'm bouncing around the room".
John Moosie

climber
Beautiful California
Nov 5, 2008 - 09:52pm PT
"(here's a hint, he looks a lot like a black guy!)"

but the black dude is for gay marriage. That leaves him out for Blue.

............

Sorry Blue, but if you want to talk about how to improve the republican party, then perhaps you should leave the slings and arrows at home.
tom woods

Gym climber
Bishop, CA
Nov 5, 2008 - 09:52pm PT
HDDJ- They are noble goals, though the pacifist in me might argue with the strong military, though maybe not.

The problem is that as long as the democrats have the unions, big business needs a party. There are not enough rich people to out vote the rest of the country so a bargain has to be made with the religious voters, who also don't have a party.

This is why, the GOP drags out the guns god and gays crap every time yet they actually have no intention of solving.

Did they manage to bring Terry Schiavo back to life? Did they pass any legislation to solve that sad situation?

It's a numbers game, and the rational conservatives are screwed.

You know how the reps like to call the dems elitist? That's becuase the whole party is based on elitism. We'll take the tax cuts and deruglation for the big guys, and get the religious idiots to back us, throw one of their leaders a cush job and call it a day.

Personally, as a left wing libertarian, I know all about not having a party.

Tom

Matt

Trad climber
primordial soup
Nov 5, 2008 - 09:53pm PT
re: "Why don't you bitch to t*r for starting stupid threads"
we get the feeling she can't help it-
you, on the other hand...
tom woods

Gym climber
Bishop, CA
Nov 5, 2008 - 09:56pm PT
I kind of like political threads with the climbers. If I debated all my lefty friends I'd get bored, here we have differnent people from all over the country brought together by climbing. Lot of different people with different points of view.

There's a lot of crap to be sure, but I've learned things even from Juan.

Tom
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 5, 2008 - 10:00pm PT
Matt, try to avoid personal attacks, it makes these discussions a lot more tolerable and easier to follow. Otherwise it inevitably descends into bullsh#t.


Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Nov 5, 2008 - 10:02pm PT
You think we could have a "Strong Military" without spending more than the rest of the whole friggin world COMBINED on it?!

I think so. We could destroy the world several times over. Nobody is going to mess with us hard.

So what is the military for? Invading coutries that don't threaten us right? Cause they have oil?

i think we'd be more fiscally responsible spending about 1/2 what we do on arms and military and NOBODY could still even dream of threatening us.

Peace

Karl
John Moosie

climber
Beautiful California
Nov 5, 2008 - 10:05pm PT
How do you restore conservatism? Perhaps by realizing that the dems are more fiscally conservative and thus dumping the repubs.

Name one republican president who offered a balanced budget. I bet you can't.


bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 5, 2008 - 10:05pm PT
Karl, I mostly agree with that.

I'm thinking I may kill this thread and start a Third Party thread. After all the Repubs will not embrace a true conservative party, which is actually indicative of a bigger problem with our 2 parties. Corruption and elitism.

John, all modern Conservatives did spend a lot. Especially the Bush's. There were also cuts with the spending.

Let's stay on point, though, the last eight years were fiscal socialism. At least fiscal drunkeness. I don't disagree.
tom woods

Gym climber
Bishop, CA
Nov 5, 2008 - 10:08pm PT
Good idea, start a third party thread. I'll found the communist libertarian party. We gotta fix health care, but leave me the f*#k alone!

Tom
John Moosie

climber
Beautiful California
Nov 5, 2008 - 10:27pm PT
Blue, no republican president in history has ever offered a balanced budget. I think my point is in line with what you are trying to accomplish. How do you restore conservatism? You realize that the republicans are not conservatives and vote democrat. At least if your above list is really what you want. The only two conservative agendas that the republicans have ever supported is anti abortion and anti gay marriage. Two things that aren't on your list above.

From this article.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0927-03.htm



Forbes Magazine's online edition performed a valuable public service in July when it ran a story comparing the economic performance of the ten postwar presidents. Forbes is the right-leaning business publication that goes by the tagline, "Capitalist Tool." Its publisher, Steve Forbes, is a big hitter in Republican circles and ran as a Republican candidate for president in 1996 and 2000.

The magazine proposed six different metrics by which a president's economic performance should be judged. They are: GDP growth, real disposable personal income, employment, unemployment, inflation, and deficit reduction. All are mainstream benchmarks with their data easily accessible to any serious inquirer.

It is a measure of Forbes' integrity that it let the chips fall where they may: the top three performing presidents - Clinton, Johnson, and Kennedy - were all Democrats while the bottom three performers - Nixon, Eisenhower, and Bush the Elder - were all Republicans. The middle of the pack was a mixed bag of all the rest: Reagan; Ford; Carter; and Truman.

There was never a Republican President who balanced the budget because it goes against their traditional values of Enormous Trade Deficits and a Weak U.S. Dollar.


........

Here is the article the common dreams article is written about.

http://www.forbes.com/commerce/2004/07/20/cx_da_0720presidents.html
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Nov 5, 2008 - 10:32pm PT
Bluering, I am going to respectfully suggest that the country has moved a little left of center on almost everything, and as a result the right of center Republican party is a rapidly dying entity. Consider the following:
Social issues - a strong majority of the American people do not want to see the Federal or the State Government take away from women the personal responsiblity for decisions regarding both their own bodies, and the right to make decisions for any fetus inside of them. Republicans have a real problem saying they are the party of personal responsiblity and then denying that right to fully 50% of the voting population. You guys got problems with women voters, big time, now and forever on this issue.
You got a problem saying the Republicans are the party of fiscal responsiblity. Nope, things have changed in the public's mind about that. Not since Johnson's Great Society programs of the sixties, over forty years ago, can you hang the mantle of deficit spending on Democrats. Much recently, the voting public remembers the big deficet spending under both Reagan and now especially under George W Bush. You guys lost the claim to being fiscally responsible when you had all three branches of government from 2000 to 2006 and you incredibly both started an unwanted and unnecessary war while at the same time giving the largest tax cut in history under the guise that if you give more to the already rich, then they will be so grateful that instead of just keeping the extra money, they would surely go create some jobs for the peasants. Well, that did not work, failed miserably, job growth the past 8 years has been pathetic.
Also, another great failure was the conservative mantra of just let markets be free, free, and all will work out. Did not work, Alan Greenspan publically apologized recently and called that his biggest wrong supposition in allowing unfettered deregulation.
So, if you want to say that conservatism has real value, value that voters will agree with and want to elect conservatives, then you have to give them strong reasons to do so. Republicans are now seen as the party of bullheaded intolerance on social issues, the party of irresponsible fiscal policy, and the party that wanted to invade another country so bad that it made up, and then supported with lies, reasons to invade. In short, your brand is tarnished badly, and not because the MSM did you in. It is tarnished because you guys had your chance and you flat blew it.
The country saw the horrors of six years of solid conservative rule and soundly rejected your people in 2006, and again now in this election. You can choose to see this and modify your thinking so that it is more mainsteam instead of right of center, or you can choose to insist that the American people are wrong in their leftward shift, and you can remain the party that offers nothing of interest, and will continue to be thumped in future elections, perhaps for a very long time.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 5, 2008 - 10:50pm PT
The military is fine how it is right now. But please understand that funding the military also allows the military to develop stuff like the space program, deterrant weapons, self-defense, and other useful civilian uses.

I'm not saying to grow it, just manage it better, more efficiently. No more contractors too!
nita

climber
chica from chico, I don't claim to be a daisy
Nov 5, 2008 - 10:50pm PT
Bluey..etc, Terry Gross on Fresh air-talked about- The view of Contempary America ..and.. The Future of the Conservative Movement.

The first story is Bill Moyers speaking, second story down -Mickey Edwards.

Both are EXCELLENT!....give them a listen..

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=4&islist=true&id=13&d=11-05-2008
tom woods

Gym climber
Bishop, CA
Nov 5, 2008 - 11:00pm PT
Norton, couldn't have said it better myself.

tom woods

Gym climber
Bishop, CA
Nov 5, 2008 - 11:05pm PT
skip

if you look at the wars as justified in some way, it makes sense that we invaded Afghanistan, but Iraq was BS from before day one.

If you at it as an effort to squeeze Iran, then both actually make some sense, but our favorite war mongering buddies in the adminstration didn't actually know all that much about war, having dodged the draft and all.

Now were broke and our friends in the service are getting blow'd up.

Anyone actually believe the surge worked because of troop numbers? Dude we cut deals with the Iranians who can ramp up the violence there any time they want.

Criminal charges for misuse of the armed services, I guess it's not technically a crime, but it is.

Tom
Ghost

climber
A long way from where I started
Nov 5, 2008 - 11:16pm PT
The key issue, in my opinion at least, is to realize that there are two separate meanings for "conservative" in your country, and that somehow that separation has been lost.


There are many people in the US, I would venture to say most people, who support the idea of fiscal conservatism. They may quarrel over details, but most would agree that a balanced budget is a good thing, and that a reasonable level of taxation to pay for a reasonable level of services is a good thing.

But the other "conservatives," the social conservatives, are an entirely different group. They are, for the most part, religious fundamentalists of one persuasion or another, and their goals are not shared by the majority of Americans.

Would it not make sense for there to be a political party that bases itself on moderate fiscal conservatism and moderate social liberalism?

As things stand, the Democratic party comes closest to that at present. So it seems that if you want to restore conservatism (in the sense I believe you are using it), then you either have to accept the Democratic Party (for the present, at least), severely restrict the influence of the religious fundamentalists on the Republican party, or form a third party.

My $0.02 (about $0.025 in your currency)

David

bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 5, 2008 - 11:16pm PT
I believe that I first called my party te Nationalized Capitalist Party, but not only is it a misnomer, but it sounds way too fascistic!

I guess what I'm going for is a capitalistic system, but one that stresses national capitalism (tariffs/incentives) and not global capitalism (sending manufacturing to China). One that also police's it's border, monitors food, encourages domestic food, encourages alternative energy that's viable, encourages people to work for their money, education funding analysis, etc..
noshoesnoshirt

climber
Nov 5, 2008 - 11:17pm PT
"I'm thinking I may kill this thread and start a Third Party thread. After all the Repubs will not embrace a true conservative party, which is actually indicative of a bigger problem with our 2 parties. Corruption and elitism."



I'm with you.

Let's line 'em all up and start over.

edit: I'd vote libertarian, but those guys want to sell off all our public lands. A bit of overkill, eh?
tom woods

Gym climber
Bishop, CA
Nov 5, 2008 - 11:27pm PT
David- You are right on, but the problem is the unions vs. the big business fiscal conservatives, they tradionally haven't been able to be in the same party. That's why fiscal conservatives have to sign on with the social conservatives.

Also I wasn't trying to be callous, I'm actually fairly angry about the whole situation. Fortunately for my frends overseas, Iraq has calmed down. A local kid got killed last year but so far my friends have been fine. I'm mad that they put people in harm's way for no real reason and then did it poorly. It's not the soldiers, they are doing their jobs. It was the decision makers, both strategically and tactically that led us down into the muck. Heads have been replaced with cooler heads, and progress gets made.

Afghanistan is another story. That one, while the more justified, will be a mess for a long time.

In the end these things have nothing to do with conservatism, and more to do with poor decision makers.

Tom

tom woods

Gym climber
Bishop, CA
Nov 5, 2008 - 11:30pm PT
no shoes. That's why I'm a communist libertarian. The real libertarians are really just right wing republicans and not libertarians at all.

Public land is one the best thing about this country. If it was privatized, we wouldn't be allowed to go play with out a fee.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Nov 5, 2008 - 11:36pm PT
Skip wrote

""i think we'd be more fiscally responsible spending about 1/2 what we do on arms and military and NOBODY could still even dream of threatening us."

Excuse me,

I seem to remember some people flying into buildings or something like that.

And weren't those same people being protected by a country that we had to invade? Aren't we still there fighting? "

Yes Skip, some terrorists, not sponsored by any government but mostly Saudi Arabians who organized themselves in Germany attacked some important buildings.

So we attacked Afghanistan, (with little actual proof of how much, if any, they were involved) How much of a military does it take to whip one of the world's poorest countries? How did our uber-special military come into play in preventing or protecting 9-11?

The only person with strong 9-11 ties that Afghanistan had (and offered to give him up to a neutral country for trial) was Bin Laden. He got away even though we have the worlds most expensive military.

Very little, military spending actually gets in the way of money that could go into domestic law enforcement, port security and so on.

Conservatives who think we have to blow more money than we have on bombs and weapons are fearful wimps. We are wasting our future doing this and our use of our military is one of the main things that actually brings these threats to our door.

Peace

Karl
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Arid-zona
Nov 5, 2008 - 11:50pm PT
bluering-


I'm sorry man but the time for racing for the victim position has passed. You wanted notes on how to make conservatism worthy again. I gave you constructive criticism and you instantly began whining about the "biased media." You're still pretending that it's the world that's messed up, not your message. We had an election. A big one. And it roundly rejected the message that you are trying to defend.


So again I say to you: Take an objective look at what the Repubs did. Stop racing for the "oh but they did it too crap." You guys lost for a REASON and it's NOT because the Dems had a negative message or cause the MSM was against you. It's because the Republicans were INAUTHENTIC in every way shape and form. Characterizing Obama's tax plan as socialist is not authentic. Pretending that Obama wants to "legislate failure in Iraq" is not authentic. Pretending that a woman that thinks Africa is a country and can't name the countries in NAFTA is qualified to be President is inauthentic. Yesterday America said overwhelmingly that they saw that to be the case.

There is nothing wrong with authentic conservatism. What is wrong is that those that are championing it forgot that holding on to one's ideals and doing what is right for the country is more important than winning.
John Moosie

climber
Beautiful California
Nov 6, 2008 - 12:23am PT
"I seem to remember some people flying into buildings or something like that. '

At that time, we had the most powerful military in the world. Did it stop the terrorist?

NOPE. The military can't protect us from terrorist.


Karl wrote,

"We are wasting our future doing this and our use of our military is one of the main things that actually brings these threats to our door. "

In other words... You reap what you sow.

dirtbag

climber
Nov 6, 2008 - 12:39am PT
BLuering,

Here are my thoughts.

What should be the priorities of government? In broad terms, what should it achieve or promote?

-National security?
-Education?
-Safety?

Figure this out before you figure out how to get there.

graniteclimber

Trad climber
Nowhere
Nov 6, 2008 - 01:01am PT
Bluering: "Matt, try to avoid personal attacks, it makes these discussions a lot more tolerable and easier to follow. Otherwise it inevitably descends into bullsh#t."

Bullshit like your claim that Obama wasn't a U.S. citizen?

Bullshit like your claim that Obama and his supporters were like the Nazis and might haul you away to the ovens?
Jeremy Handren

climber
NV
Nov 6, 2008 - 01:16am PT
Great link nita...
I especially liked his comments on the likely legacy of the Bush administration....".if you don't believe in Government" etc..

I've been saying the same thing myself for years.

salad

climber
Escondido
Nov 6, 2008 - 03:55am PT
hey blue,

are you going to be around for the thanksgiving weekend? ill be up there and be short on time, but i would love to hit castle even if just for an hour or two, (boulder) if i can. it would be cool to get humiliated on all the sh#t i used to have wired.

have you ever been down to lost keys bolder? its a ways down from a castle perspective, and its pretty small so in a way limited, but the problems are cool. i used to go down there a lot at dawn before having to check in with the man, and work that damn traverse (lost keys traverse). sean and evan and maybe some others found it and sent everything on it. they thought they had found the boulder, and i think they didnt know it had been climbed, so they gave everything a name. long winded, but my point is, to me, the traverse is called 'bitch stopper' (V4). yeah, its a traverse, so i know... but its the most technical sequence ive ever been able to put together, so i really like it. when i say put together, i dont mean 'figure out' cause sean certainly gave some beta.

Spent a lot of time down there during some special times of my life. it was around the time my daughter was born and i was a salaried employee for a consulting firm. i was on the bench and i got paid for about 6 months! i think i had one or two 3 week gigs in there, but for the most part i was at home getting paid. such a blessing to be able to be home all day, every day, during my daughters first 6 months of life. she and i have a very strong bond and i think that time at home has something to do with it. actually thats bullsh#t, she and i are just get along.

i had a kick ass garden that year. i wasnt 'on the bench' when i started that garden, i was on a long term project in San Jose which ended right when Tess was born. I remember i had a giant chamomille(sp) plant in the garden and i would bring tons of it into work and make tea. the tea pretty much sucked, but i was in uber hippAY mode and lovin life.

the garden was small but bountiful, and i'll never forget the salsa i made from it. i didnt grow garic, so garlic, vineger and salt where the only ingrediants in the salsa that didn't come from the garden. it was hotter than a french whore on a friday night too...habenaro! jalepeno!! cerrano!!!! lots of zuch bread and rosemary garlic (again store bought garlic) bread. anyway, that garden might have had something to do with the times, it was a diverse garden, and i certainly babied it.

they were good cerranos too. curry from scratch. Who-Rah! reggae, morter, pestal, the flavor was intricate but often to spicey. singh ha beer! Thailand is in my soul.

i had this piece of sh#t climbing wall, but it was cool all the same. it was steep and we would get together on tuesdays (wendesdays?) and crank. every once in a while we had a beer or two as well, sometimes mrs g would do the cookie thang. mr lane particulalry enjoyed the beer. folks did get injured. most of us had no talent but everyone pulled hard.

sean would set the bar (problems), and the rest of us would spend the next couple of weeks trying do them (few were repeated). So instead we threw a big hold at each corner and the mortals would compete for the most number of laps before failing. each corner hold had to be grasped solidly before moving on. this competition was mostly between lane, strom and myself, and it was a great motivater, and many pre dawn sessions took place beforew work.

anyway, it was good time in my life. i established great friendships with people like erik strom, jeff lane, mungie, sean ryan (who i miss dearly), evan... people whose company i took for granted and whose company i long for now.

but bitch stopper.... what a fun traverse! would you believe i gave up alcohol until i sent that fuker? HOO RAH! only took me about 5 days after that commitment!

MAN! One day, god damn gorgeous Saturday! it was cold and that sandstone was pretty sticky. we were up there in the afternoon, so it wasnt ultra prime Cashel sticky, but winter good all the same. it was the Magoos! holy shit! this Spanish girl was realy beuatiful! i mean she was super pretty (mind to mush...super...). she was with another gal that was purty too. Evan swooned in and us thugs stepped back and wathced evan make that dance look so easy... and soon we were on our way to "Moon Rock" (Lost Keys Boulder) with some cuties.

it was super fun and that super pretty Spanish girl was a super strong climber. she fumbled maybe once, twice at most, falling while dropping on to the bench. she got through it though, with a sequence i could never do, and when she came off she was super cool. she called it 6a.(french?? i dunno).. 'maybe 6a ploooce' she said. to me that meant 10a. freekin classic, id spent monthes on this thing and she calls it 10a.

wow! so many other good memories! toatin around with my thermus full of jo! lots of coffee and working hard on sh#t before work. id go up there at dawn and work on stuff. scrub the problem, warm up. whap the sh#t outta the rock with shirt, shoulderz feeling loose! scrubbin with that stupid M15, but man... clean is good!

whoa! 1 am gotta sleep.
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Nov 6, 2008 - 04:28am PT
"But I ask you, 'How many people are you willing to sacrifice in order to save money.'"

I would say you could very easily sum up the last six years with the question:

"But I ask you, 'How many people are you willing to sacrifice in order to make money.'"

I'd also say if you wanted to rebuild the republican party then dump the social conservatives and religious nutjobs and simply endeavor to persevere in the delivery of W's 1999-2000 campaign rhetoric. The current administration is exactly the danger Eisenhower attempted to warn our nation about.
Chris2

Trad climber
Nov 6, 2008 - 08:55am PT
Republicans could be served well to take a good look at the beliefs of Barry Goldwater.
jstan

climber
Nov 6, 2008 - 10:22am PT
Blue:
A suggestion for your effort to form a new party for conservative thinkers.

Study the excellent and successful political people. Then adopt what is good.

Take a look at Obama. He called in the very best people on economics and then reportedly said, "Tell me what(you believe) I need to do."



I read the above thread and I sense only resistance on your part.

Keep this up and any conversation you have will be with yourself.

We would not have the trouble we do now in the US if a certain leader had realized the first thing a leader has to know - is how to choose the people they will be following. Everyone follows.

Now I suspect the above will cause you to feel resistance rising. Here is one way to fix that.

If one asks the question, "What is life?" a single answer leads the rest.

It is a chance to learn and to become better.

Speaking from experience, there is an amazing realization here.

When one is really bad, you have many more opportunities than does someone who is already good.
bwancy1

Trad climber
Here
Nov 6, 2008 - 11:20am PT
A great first step to restoring conservatism would be to prosecute Bush and his group of criminals for their crimes. Drag them out of the White House in handcuffs.

I hope for a future where we as Americans are less divided in our own country, but right now we not only need to restore conservatism, we need to restore our very democracy.
dirtineye

Trad climber
the south
Nov 6, 2008 - 11:29am PT
True conservatives, like Bacevich and Brooks, have been dealt such a blow by the neo-con Rethuglicans, that they were supporting the democrats.

I mena, when you promise, FOR THIRTY YEARS MIND YOU, smaller gov, but producer bigger nad more intrusive gov than ever before, when you promise fiscal responsibility but deliver HUGE deficits and national debt, nad you do NOTHING about social issues like you promised, what are the real conservatives supposed to do?


Real conservatives and real liberals actually have a lot in common. they both want to make our country better, they just differ on HOW.

The Rethuglican neo-cons were serious thugs who had a totally different agenda-- to plunder the country and the gov for themselves and their rich friends.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 6, 2008 - 11:36am PT
Salad, what dates will you be up here? I'll be in Jtree the 26th through the 30th.

As for Federal priorities, I say;

 National security (including the borders)

 National infrastructure (roads, schools, energy regulation, food regulation)

 Economic regulation (not ownership, not meddling, just monitoring and keeping things honest)

The devil, of course, is in the details of these issues...lemme think...


Dirt, for the sake of the debate, when I say conservative I mean 'real' conservative, when I mean neo-con, I'll say neo-con. And yes, most Repubs (not all) nowadays have too much of the neo-con bent in them.
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Arid-zona
Nov 6, 2008 - 11:54am PT
Step 1: Stop believing your own propaganda. Immigration is a perfect example of what started as a political "wedge" issue got way out of hand and turned into absolutist dogma. The result? Hispanic voters fled the Republican party en masse on Tuesday, destroying most of the gains made by Bush over the last 8 years. Look at the other aspects of your platform and figure out where else you have gotten dogmatic and reassess. The world doesn't operate in black and white, and neither should your policies. Free trade is a great example. You keep talking about tariffs btu that doesn't jibe with free trade.

Regulation IS "meddling." You seem to recognize that regulation is necessary but are still so worried about the stigma that you have helped attach to it that you are trying to set some imaginary line at "meddling." There is no such line. Regulation is "meddling" when it's happening to YOU. You're going to need to come up with a better policy than that if you are going to be authentic about it. Saying "regulation but not meddling" is just as much political BS as what you are trying to get away from.
dirtbag

climber
Nov 6, 2008 - 12:00pm PT
"As for Federal priorities, I say;

National security (including the borders)

National infrastructure (roads, schools, energy regulation, food regulation)

Economic regulation (not ownership, not meddling, just monitoring and keeping things honest)

The devil, of course, is in the details of these issues...lemme think... "


Cool, good start. Might not be exactly my priorities, but you are thinking what you'd like to see happen. Now as you say, the devil is in the details.

Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Nov 6, 2008 - 12:16pm PT
I'd like to hear what folks think "Conservatism" is. We've become confused over the years of Bush administration rule.

1. I've heard conservatives are fiscally conservative but over the past 30 years the GOP presidents have had larger deficits so how much is fiscal conservatism alive still? How does being fiscally responsible square with our system where money is created by creating debt and growth is required to keep our monetary system afloat in a huge international system?

2. I've heard conservatives believe in freedom and keeping government out of our business but the only thing I've seen them do is try to keep government out of our "money making business" How doe any of this square with wiretapping citizens without warrant, spying on non-violent peace groups, eliminating Habeas corpus and such?

3. What is freedom?

4. How much morality should be enforced by law?

5. What is the relationship between religion and government.

6. Some conservatives used to be non-interventionist and somewhat isolation oriented. How much should we be the world's policeman? When do we spend lives and money to do war and war-lite?

7. Are the checks and balances of government important or do we need a super powerful president who can ignore subpoenas and ignore laws?

8. What balance of debt versus taxes should finance whatever budget we decide on?

9. How does conservatism deal with the environment? Can market forces be trusted if we see situations where real harm is being done?

10. What do conservative social programs look like? If we eliminate certain social programs, what do we do about the fallout? (say we ditch medical or welfare but then desperate people turn to crime or die on the streets? Do we build poor houses?)

11. How much is it just about "just don't tax me much and I don't care about the rest?"

There is so much difference between a Dick Cheney, a Palin, McCain, a Dobson or a Limbaugh that the word has become somewhat meaningless. Help me understand what YOU mean by it?

Peace

Karl


Paul Martzen

Trad climber
Fresno
Nov 6, 2008 - 12:28pm PT
I think that America is a very conservative country. The last 8 years have not been a conservative period, in my mind, even though the people in charge called themselves conservative. I think that one reason Obama was elected is because he is clearly the more conservative choice. In actions and demeanor he appears to me, much more conservative than McCain and especially more than Palin. His words are carefully considered. He does not get riled up easily.

We talk as if liberalism and conservatism are diametrically opposed. I think that is just because two opposing teams have taken those labels as their banners, just like the SF 49'ers and the Oakland Raiders. The terms are just labels that have nothing to do with the actual teams.

Liberalism is the idea that humans can solve their problems through rational processes and that each individual human has rights and deserves respect. It also embraces the idea that we never know for sure what is coming in the future, so it pays to be open minded and have a wide range of skills to have a chance of dealing with the unexpected. Liberalism accepts that change is inevitable, that we need a wide range of skills to deal with it.

Conservatism in my mind is the idea that change is not always for the best and that too much change all at once is impossible to understand and even more change all at once is impossible to survive. If you have too much change at once, you can not tell what caused the change and you can not tell what effects the change will have. Conservatives prefer changes to be slow and manageable, ie steady economic growth.

I do not think that much political discourse fits in either of those two definitions, so I use other descriptions, such as: lying, fear, fear mongering, greed, anger, obfuscation,....

Personally, I hope that we can refine governments to operate more rationally and more scientifically. Meaning that we come up with better ways to develop our laws and ways to better assess whether our laws actually accomplish what we want them to. A healthy democracy should somehow be able to groom rational and intelligent leaders, but it should also be able to survive mediocre and poor leaders. That Bush has been able to do so much damage (edit: to our treasury, Iraq, Afghanistan and our prestige) is a reflection on us and our system as much as on him.
dirtbag

climber
Nov 6, 2008 - 12:29pm PT
Interesting post, Paul.
dirtbag

climber
Nov 6, 2008 - 12:30pm PT
dog catcher, man, dog catcher.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Nov 6, 2008 - 12:32pm PT
Whatever Lois. This thread is about "Conservatism" and how to restore it. Personally, I'd love to see conservatism reform itself sanely so when the pendulum swings back, it won't be some corrupt and nasty destructive hell like we've been through with Bush.

peace

Karl
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 6, 2008 - 12:32pm PT
Hmmm, Karl raises good questions. I'm busy now though so I'll be back later with my own thoughts on those questions.
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Arid-zona
Nov 6, 2008 - 12:34pm PT
Agreed karl. Real conservatism (fiscal and governmental), as I've stated before, is an important counterweight to liberalism.
jstan

climber
Nov 6, 2008 - 12:35pm PT
Exceptionally fine post there Paul.

IMO Bush was able to do as much damage as he did because the power of the executive has gone beyond the limits as outlined by our Constitution. And by public acceptance of the idea that some laws may be enforced and others not.

If something is required by law, to the best of our ability, it needs to be enforced. On the flip side if we can not enforce something, it should never be made a law.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Nov 6, 2008 - 12:36pm PT
"Can I count on your support if I run for congress or POTUS"

no on the congress question and a big no on POTUS.

That's President Of The Underwear Society right?

I just can't support the "tighty whitey party" panty line! I'm somewhat sympathetic with the "victoria secret society" but mostly pal around with terrorist "commandos!"

;-)

Karl
dirtbag

climber
Nov 6, 2008 - 12:46pm PT
"OK fine. But how smart can you be if you believe the earth is 6000 years old or that embryo who are going to get unfrozen and die anyway are "snowflake babies"? "


Like Palin.

jstan

climber
Nov 6, 2008 - 12:50pm PT
Ooh! That was a zinger.
apogee

climber
Nov 6, 2008 - 12:54pm PT
It seems to me that the majority of the divisiveness and negativity that has become associated with the GOP has occurred in the last 30-40 years, since the Repugs decided to merge the interests of the religious right into their agenda as a means of strengthening their constituency. Many of the Dem vs. Rep issues that get the most press (and generate the most personal attacks and panty-twists on ST) are ones that are socially-related: religion & government/schools, abortion, gay marriage, etc. As I understand it, it was not long ago that the SE US was a strongly Democratic area, due to Dem's emphasis on labor issues. The GOP chose to take advantage of the strong religious base that is present there, and merged the religious agenda with the Conservative agenda simply as a means of increasing their voting base. The Reagan era really took advantage of this 'new' version of the Republican party (Falwell, Gingrich, etc.) to gain it's power and establish it's legacy.

It's been that way for 3 or 4 decades now, and most people tend to regard the GOP as being primarily religious-right- especially those people whose political awareness and activity began in those years. At this point, this alliance has worn thin, and it seems that the country is tired of the divisiveness that occurs with all of the social wedge issues.

As devastating as this election may have been for the GOP, I hope it creates the impetus to go back and rediscover and establish itself in it's true values: fiscal conservatism, individual liberty (and other elements I'm not educated enough about the GOP to articulate). In these basic values they are likely to find much common ground with the populace, and if they can find a way to communicate them in a rational, intelligent manner that avoids divisiveness and smear, they would probably find themselves in a very different place than they are right now.
dirtbag

climber
Nov 6, 2008 - 01:13pm PT
Lois, you are a big supporter of that 6000 yo earth believer from Alaska, not me.

Of course, there is much evidence for a much broader ignorance of other issues, but that is discussed elsewhere.

But in the end, the 6000 yo earth thing didn't diminish your enthusiasm for her or Huckabee, even though you don't share those views.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 6, 2008 - 01:25pm PT
You can't get qualified men (or women) to run for office if you ALSO have a mandate that they hold assinine ideas. That is why you get Bush and McCain and whatever. If you eliminate all the smart ones because they don't ascribe to stupid ideas then what do you expect will happen.

Lois, I'm not advocating that ALL candidates have to pledge allegiance to a specific doctrine. I'm saying that as a party, we need people that would focus on true conservative values. As a party we can voice opposition (votes, etc..) to people who's plans don't come close enough to our values.

As I noted earlier, Bobby Jindal, Gov of Louisiana, is a near perfect candidate with regards to true conservatism.



Fatty, you'd get my vote for senator. Who are you planning to challenge, Boxer or Feinstein?
apogee

climber
Nov 6, 2008 - 01:40pm PT
"As a party we can voice opposition (votes, etc..) to people who's plans don't come close enough to our values."

This is an interesting topic to discuss, and I would get a whole lot more out of it if the personal slams could be left aside.

'...our values.' THAT is the real question here- what ARE the true, core values of conservatism? If one sets aside the religious right/social issue & the neo-con agendas, what is at the core of conservatism? Does anyone remember or know? I bet there are a lot of values there that would find strong support in America right now.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Nov 6, 2008 - 01:56pm PT
Piyush "Bobby" Jindal?

The American people will never elect a politician to POTUS with a middle name like "Bobby"!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal

peace

karl
dirtbag

climber
Nov 6, 2008 - 02:07pm PT
Lois, I'm just quoting what you said earlier.

But I disagree about the 6000 yo belief not eliminating anyone. Anyone who believes that and ignores science and learning for myths is not, in this age, qualified to be president.

There's a lot more to Palin's igorance than just that, though.
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Arid-zona
Nov 6, 2008 - 02:14pm PT
Roy Blunt just stepped down as Minority Whip. It's looking like Eric Cantor might be his replacement. If Cantor is true to his reputation this is exactly the OPPOSITE of what the GOP needs to be doing. If they pick him and another like him for Minority Leader it will be a sharp turn towards the right, and towards the kind of alienating, dismissive rhetoric that lost them this election. In the long run that probably means good things for the GOP, since it will eventually run itself completely into the ground and have to be born anew. It means a rough few years ahead until they get there though.
jstan

climber
Nov 6, 2008 - 02:31pm PT
The new Republican Party will eventually be led by the individuals who work with and give counsel to the new President, whether in the form of support or principled opposition. We should see that shaping up soon though their eventual test will be by election.

The people filibustering on the floor will, hopefully, have a tough time of it. I fully expect however, whatever they do

they will be allowed to have access to meeting rooms.
UncleDoug

Social climber
Nov 6, 2008 - 02:44pm PT
"You don't know anything about Cantor, he's part of my Republican Jewish Coalition group. I know him extemely well, do a little research first."

Jeff,

What was posted in error?
If you can't answer that, you do not belong in government.
John Moosie

climber
Beautiful California
Nov 6, 2008 - 02:44pm PT
" I fully expect however, whatever they do

they will be allowed to have access to meeting rooms."

I certainly hope so. That was a very low point for the republicans when they started denying dems meeting rooms. I hope we grow out of the win at all cost ideology.

Blue, it is a nobel thing you attempt to try to restore conservatism. I hope you will take note of what the Paul wrote earlier about the juxtaposition of liberalism and conservatism. I think it bears understanding.

"Liberalism is the idea that humans can solve their problems through rational processes and that each individual human has rights and deserves respect. It also embraces the idea that we never know for sure what is coming in the future, so it pays to be open minded and have a wide range of skills to have a chance of dealing with the unexpected. Liberalism accepts that change is inevitable, that we need a wide range of skills to deal with it.

Conservatism in my mind is the idea that change is not always for the best and that too much change all at once is impossible to understand and even more change all at once is impossible to survive. If you have too much change at once, you can not tell what caused the change and you can not tell what effects the change will have. Conservatives prefer changes to be slow and manageable, ie steady economic growth."

bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 6, 2008 - 02:51pm PT
John, I'm not sure if I agree with your definitions, but whatever...
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 6, 2008 - 03:15pm PT
From Karl's earlier post, he asked;

1. I've heard conservatives are fiscally conservative but over the past 30 years the GOP presidents have had larger deficits so how much is fiscal conservatism alive still? How does being fiscally responsible square with our system where money is created by creating debt and growth is required to keep our monetary system afloat in a huge international system?

Fiscal conservatism is needed. Spending by the government needs to drop dramaticly. Some gov't programs/offices may need to be axed.

2. I've heard conservatives believe in freedom and keeping government out of our business but the only thing I've seen them do is try to keep government out of our "money making business" How doe any of this square with wiretapping citizens without warrant, spying on non-violent peace groups, eliminating Habeas corpus and such?

It doesn't. Some of your examples are grey-areas. I support wire-tapping extremists to prevent violence, don't support tapping peaceful, non-violent dissenters.

3. What is freedom?

Less gov't. Being able to live my life with my family with a minimum of gov't interference.

4. How much morality should be enforced by law?

Depends. But as a rule, not much.

5. What is the relationship between religion and government.

Except from having traditional symbols from the 'founders' on monuments, they should be seperate. 'The Congress shall make no laws endorsing a religion nor condemning the free expression thereof'.

6. Some conservatives used to be non-interventionist and somewhat isolation oriented. How much should we be the world's policeman? When do we spend lives and money to do war and war-lite?

More isolationism, but monitor events globally and intervene when we deem a threat to our nation. Missile defense should also be a priority if we're to isolate. When not directly threatened, use a coalition to dissolve the threat.

7. Are the checks and balances of government important or do we need a super powerful president who can ignore subpoenas and ignore laws?

Haha.

8. What balance of debt versus taxes should finance whatever budget we decide on?

It should be leaning to taxes, but that's why we need to reign in spending...so that taxes don't have to go up.

9. How does conservatism deal with the environment? Can market forces be trusted if we see situations where real harm is being done?

No. Also "the environment" is a big area, be more specific. We should take more of a conservationists role not a Greenpeace enviro-nazi approach.

10. What do conservative social programs look like? If we eliminate certain social programs, what do we do about the fallout? (say we ditch medical or welfare but then desperate people turn to crime or die on the streets? Do we build poor houses?)

I have a hard time believing that the 'founders' thought it was a good idea for the Fed to be responsible for every citizen's healthcare. Leave the Fed out of it (maybe have a program for people under a certain income level). As for welfare, have a timeframe for guaranteed welfare (2 years) before they have to find a job. People truly unable to work would be exempt, but this number is very small as there's a job somewhere for everybody IMO.

11. How much is it just about "just don't tax me much and I don't care about the rest?"

C'mon. This is something to that but 'not caring about the rest' isn't true. It goes back to premise that the less gov't in your life, the more freedom you enjoy.
apogee

climber
Nov 6, 2008 - 03:17pm PT
Paul's liberalism/conservatism comments are more of a view of the world, and not values per se.

What are the specific constructs of conservatism, and how do they differ from liberalism? It would be especially useful to define those elements that have been a part of conservatism since it's inception vs. those that have occurred in the last 40 years.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 6, 2008 - 03:47pm PT
This where I'm coming from:

Liberals want more gov't spending/programs to deal with issues, and as a result, condone higher taxes to pay for them.

Conservatives want minimal gov't spending/programs to deal with issues that will be resolved States/other interests, and as a result, require less taxes.


This is a generalization of course, but the basics nonetheless.
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Nov 6, 2008 - 03:53pm PT

Lots of people hold irrational view when it comes to religion. It is a form of society-condoned irrationality. You really can't judge a person based on their religious ideology because each and every one of the major religions has elements of irrationality weaved into it.

LEB actually said something intelligent! This is quite a week. Do it again LEB, maybe you'll give all us liberals a heart attack. ;-)
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 6, 2008 - 04:08pm PT
Riley, the tree-stters, ELF, ALF, and any group reorts to violence or civil disobediance, generally speaking.

Has Kennedy been asked about Wind Farms off the East Coast?

Matt

Trad climber
primordial soup
Nov 6, 2008 - 04:14pm PT
pop quiz blueguy:

what ill be the 1st and greatest structural obstacle for creating any viable political party?
jstan

climber
Nov 6, 2008 - 04:31pm PT
(Jumping up and down)

Me! Me! Let me answer that question!

Attitude.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 6, 2008 - 04:34pm PT
Money?
apogee

climber
Nov 6, 2008 - 04:36pm PT
Bluering's point-by-point response to Karl seems to contain several of the core values of conservatism (pre-religious right/neocon era):

*Fiscally conservative spending
*Minimal governmental intervention in the lives of citizens (this would likely extend to minimizing social programs)
*Minimal international intervention (unless US interests are threatened)

These seem to be core conservative values that Goldwater would agree with...are there more? Are these correct?

Minimal taxation policies, while commonly thought of as a Republican trait, don't seem likely to be part of it's core values, except to the extent that it results in intrusion into citizen's lives.

Religion and morality are obviously different issues, but don't seem to be solely the property of conservative ideology and values- they have just been politicized that way.

The issue of the environment is not solely the property of liberalism, either- it, too has been politicized that way. Republicans have a very strong history of protection and preservation of the environment (Roosevelt-NPS, Nixon-EPA, others). Is there something uniquely different about liberal vs. conservative views of the environment? (I realize one could easily find horrific examples of where each party has compromised this.)

How about capitalism and corporatism- are there parts of this that are unique to conservatism, or is capitalism associated with conservatism simply because it tends to further it's interests?



bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 6, 2008 - 04:45pm PT
Good question with regards to capitalism vs corporatism. The latter tends to be associated with the failed neo-con policies. Capitalism worked damn well before the mega-corporation age that was bred by capitalism.

There used to be a time when a CEO/president of a company operated for the good of the company and board of directors. Now, with golden parachutes and the like, they can knowingly run a company into the ground with the prosmise of a nice package for themselves. Screw the investors and employee pensions!

That kind of midset needs changing. This is where a capitalist system requires oversight/regulation.
apogee

climber
Nov 6, 2008 - 04:57pm PT
Then what is the trait of conservatism that is appealing to capitalism? Conservatism has been around well before the religious right merged with it, and existed well before capitalism became the driving force of America. (Or am I mixing conservatism and republicanism? Are these two separate yet complementary beliefs?) I would suspect capitalism merged with conservativism for similar reasons as the religious right- it furthered their interests.

Sorry for all the questions, folks. I'm trying to dissect this issue and understand it better. I appreciate the knowledge base and constructive dialogues that occur here, especially when the vitriole can be dropped.
Matt

Trad climber
primordial soup
Nov 6, 2008 - 05:06pm PT
that's right bluey-

now Q #2:
why will it be SO freakin hard to get any real money?
khanom

climber
Far Out
Nov 6, 2008 - 05:16pm PT
"It's begging for more of a return to classic conservative principles."

Umm... American Conservatism™ is in the trash. Done. Used up. Broken. You can't restore it.


It really makes me laugh that conservatives are now saying "we did it wrong, now we have to be -more- conservative".

Yup, that's exactly what you should believe. So that you will lose again in 2012.

Thanks!
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 6, 2008 - 05:26pm PT
Apogee.."Or am I mixing conservatism and republicanism". Yeah, I think so.

Generally, capitalism is the free flow of goods and services governed by laws of supply and demand. A 'free market' so to speak.

Matt, what is 'real money'. There are rich, disenfranchised conservatives who'd prolly pony-up.

apogee

climber
Nov 6, 2008 - 05:33pm PT
Conservatism and Republicanism may be one and the same or slight variations of each other, but they are definitely not Capitalism.

Can anyone clearly define conservatism and republicanism, and differentiate them if necessary? Again, what is it about these ideologies that was so attractive to capitalist interests that resulted in them being associated so closely? Fact is, it is easy to argue that liberalism and democrats are just as intertwined in capitalism. Why did capitalism become primarily associated with the GOP?
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 6, 2008 - 06:17pm PT
Can anyone clearly define conservatism and republicanism, and differentiate them if necessary? Again, what is it about these ideologies that was so attractive to capitalist interests that resulted in them being associated so closely? Fact is, it is easy to argue that liberalism and democrats are just as intertwined in capitalism. Why did capitalism become primarily associated with the GOP?

Let me take a stab and others can add their say.

First of all, Repubs are not necesarrily conservative.

Republican is a political party that tended towards conservative policies regarding gov't in the past. Nowadays, Repubs have become greedy and beholden to lobbyists and neo-conservative policy. Neo-con's are all about capitalism, but it's capitalism-at-all-costs, profits, profits, profits, with little regard for financial stability or responsibility.

As far as an attraction to capitalism it's obvious that neo-cons would love a totally unregulated capitalism. Repub's are perceived to be capitalists because they are perceived to be better money managers, pro-business, and tend to advocate a free-market with minimal gov't intervention.

Dems are perceived to be better spenders of tax dollars and also are perceived to be a burden to business.

These are general perceptions, not necessarily true in the case of every politician.
mynameismud

climber
backseat
Nov 6, 2008 - 08:40pm PT
As a conservative I want

Fiscal Responsibility
Social Responsibility
Enviromental Responsibility

The current Republican Retoric dams all the above.

When I see a change I will re-register as a Republican.

fattrad your not a conservative. A Republican perhaps, but not a conservative.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 6, 2008 - 08:46pm PT
I kinda agree...mostly.

Fatty's a neocon AND a Republican. Proud too. He is only a partial neocon though, he does care about environmental crap and outdoors issues. He's one of us, he prolly thinks I'm too much of a 'gunrack' conservative than a 'country club' Republican, and he's prolly tight, but we have much more in common.

There is some very common ground, I just think we need more traditional conservatism, he'd prolly agree. Neocons do well in a trad system
just passing thru

climber
Nov 6, 2008 - 09:01pm PT
The American Dream is a personal belief of how you want to live.


At the core of conservative thought is the guarantee of the American Dream.

The liberals believe in the American Dream too--just as long as you don’t make too much money and have the right size carbon footprint.





Just got to get rid of the Religious Right crap and substitute in some good ol fashion Libertarianism. It will happen, my generation (X) of conservatives don’t go for that RR crap.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Nov 6, 2008 - 09:03pm PT
Blue wrote

"Republican is a political party that tended towards conservative policies regarding gov't in the past. Nowadays, Repubs have become greedy and beholden to lobbyists and neo-conservative policy. Neo-con's are all about capitalism, but it's capitalism-at-all-costs, profits, profits, profits, with little regard for financial stability or responsibility.

As far as an attraction to capitalism it's obvious that neo-cons would love a totally unregulated capitalism. Repub's are perceived to be capitalists because they are perceived to be better money managers, pro-business, and tend to advocate a free-market with minimal gov't intervention. "

The irony is that, during the past 80 years, the stock market, on average, has done FAR better under DEM administrations and federal deficits have increased LESS by far under DEM administrations. So what's up with this GOP reputation for being business friendly?

Ironically, economics is a strange thing. Sometimes results are counter-intuitive. Ya gotta give to get.

So the neo-cons have mostly focused on the redistribution of wealth to the ultra wealthy without caring for the economy as a whole.

The neo-cons complained that Government sucked and privatization was the answer but then Haliburton, Bectel, and the rest charged WAY more than the military would have spent doing it themselves and largely left their work undone and money lost.

My suggestion is that a NEW conservatism spend money responsibly, whether on social programs or military, based on a strict analysis of cost-benefits and a strenuous program of efficiency and wise streamlining. It would be easier to reform government to make it work lean, efficient and smart than to get rid of government and hope business takes care of all our problems. We've seen where they go with that.

Peace

Karl

Peace

Karl
John Moosie

climber
Beautiful California
Nov 6, 2008 - 09:06pm PT
"what is it about these ideologies that was so attractive to capitalist interests that resulted in them being associated so closely?"

Capitalist like the republicans ( who are not conservative ) because republicans have been pushing for deregulation of everything. It is short sighted thinking because non regulation leads to wild swings in the market.

Blue says he wants a free market but he wants regulation. Therefore he does not understand what a free market is, because a free market is just that, free of regulation.

Free markets do not work for the average person because the average person is not perfectly informed and does not have perfect access to the things the wealthy do. To have a perfectly running free market everyone must be perfectly inform. This is not possible, therefore the whole notion of "free market" is silly.

What we need is a regulated market with checks and balances that strive for a balanced and equitable playing field. It is not easy to do, but a "free" market is impossible.

I think some time needs to be spent on defining terms.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 6, 2008 - 09:12pm PT
Bluering,

Sorry it's taken so long to join this thread. I felt the Obamanators deserved a day to celebrate, and I a day to reflect before letting fly. Here are my thoughts briefly.

First, I believe that modern political conservatism has its roots in Adam Smith (who greatly mistrusted the interaction of business and government), Barry Goldwater (who believed in a strong defense, but had a strong respect for personal freedom) and Milton Friedman (who understood that economic freedom was something good in its own right, and had the courage to speak up in an academic environment quite hostile to his views).

With these thoughts in mind, I offer the following:

1. As you noted, the Republicns are a political party. In my opinion, the reason they lost the last two elections has much to do with their actions being indistinguishable from those of the Democrats. They tried to gerrymander their way into power (see Tom DeLay), spend their way into power (see Ted Stevens), and Jingoize their way to power (see Tom Tancredo). Their only apparent principle was a desire for power. We deserve to be in the wilderness for a while. It may clear our minds.

2. Conservatives should get our principles from our beliefs and from our experience, not from opinion polls. As the last two elections and the last six years show, we make lousy Democrats.

3. Conservatives should promote the general economic welfare, not that of particular interest groups. We should neither support nor oppose corporations, labor, farmers, importers, exporters, etc. We support the American people as a whole.

4. Conservatives should emphasize that the people and organizations that provide the goods and services that we consume are heroes, not villains. Modern Democrats' villains are corporations that provide pharmaceutical and petroleum products, automobiles, food, clothing, housing and just about eveything else we want. Their heroes are plaintiffs' lawyers, labor unions and government employees. We must be broader than that. We must remind those around us that prosperity dosen't come from killing the goose that lays the golden eggs -- all we get is goose guts.

5. Conservatives believe that peoples' abilities and actions are more important in determining where they end up than is luck or unfairness. We should be very wary of schemes that redistribute anything, subject to my next point.

6. Conservatives should recognize that concern for the poor and the less fortunate is a concern of all of us, but that the government is has a unique role to play there. Otherwise, only those who cared would pay, and those who didn't could freeload and not do their share. To that extent, at least, redistribution is appropriate, necessary and moral, but it must be a redistribution that is designed to make people independent. For too long, our system made people dependent for ever.

7. Conservatives should be pro-immigration. Anti-immigration was originally the province of the labor unions trying to restrict the labor supply. Most immigrants I know work hard, have strong ethical and family ties, and want to be good Americans, but I'm prejudiced. My mother is an immigrant, and my father a first-generation American. Immigrants are our natural allies, and as much of our hope for the future as our own children. We should embrace them, not exclude them.

8. Conservatives believe in the equality of humanity. We do not support special privileges for people because of their gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or any other criterion other than ability and actions. We need to be loyal to that principal, regardless of who we may wish to defend or dump on.

9. Finally, conservatives need to fight for free speech for all. We, of all people, should know what it's like to express unpopular views -- particularly if we've spent time at mainstream Universities, or even fora such as this one. We need to remember that the only speech that really needs protection is offensive speech; otherwise, who cares? When we defend the rights of others from things like speech codes, we defend our rights to free debate, intellectual liberty and the sort of exchange of ideas that leads to truth.

Sorry for the length. If I had more time, I'd write a shorter rant, but I have to go terrify myself accompanying a chamber choarale on music I've had no chance to rehearse. Thanks for starting the thread, Blue.

John
John Moosie

climber
Beautiful California
Nov 6, 2008 - 09:16pm PT
Wow John. No wonder you hate democrats. Thankfully what you believe about democrats is incredibly off base.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 6, 2008 - 09:34pm PT
Nice post, John, I agree almost completely. Not you Moosie. You covered most of my generalizations and expanded them a bit and I agree for the most part.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Nov 6, 2008 - 09:37pm PT
I don't agree with all John's points on Democrats but I think he is pointing to higher ideals of conservatism in an intelligent way. Nice post.

Peace

karl
dirtineye

Trad climber
the south
Nov 6, 2008 - 09:47pm PT
Ya know, what you so-called conservatives need to learn first, is that conservatives actually CONSERVE stuff.

You can look it up.

As in way back to Teddy Roosevelt, reforesting America, and all that.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 6, 2008 - 09:51pm PT
dirt, read the thread, we tend to agree on conservationism, it's the fringe crap where it gets sticky.

Edit: What we're not mentioning, because it's a conservative focused thread, is that Dem party has been over-run by far left anarchists and commies that leaves a bigger gap in the non-existant middle, the 'undecideds'.
stevep

Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
Nov 6, 2008 - 09:54pm PT
I'd say your post JEl, captures alot well, other than I don't think, regarding point #4, that most Democrats regard all corporations as evil. More the greedy executives that have come to run them at the expense of everyone else.

Beyond that, I'd say most of your points fit with what I would like Democrats to be as well. I don't see many of those values as particularly conservative or liberal.
mynameismud

climber
backseat
Nov 6, 2008 - 10:05pm PT
fatrad,
From what I have read of your posts you and I disagree on the definition of
Fiscal Responsibility
Social Responsibilty
Environmental Resposibility
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Nov 6, 2008 - 10:08pm PT
Bluering "What we're not mentioning, because it's a conservative focused thread, is that Dem party has been over-run by far left anarchists and commies that leaves a bigger gap in the non-existant middle, the 'undecideds'."

This is pure nonsense Bluering. The Democrats have become very much a center party. You don't understand what "extreme left" means.

If I were to take quote and policies from the Clinton administration and put them along side those from Bush 1 and 2, you would be hard pressed to find any difference.

If we put statistics regarding spending and debt up against those GOP guys, you'd find it hard to find anything extreme and would probably envy the Clinton numbers.

The only "extreme" policies in the past 20 years have come from the Bush administration.

Peace

Karl


Mighty Hiker

Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Nov 6, 2008 - 10:11pm PT
"that Dem party has been over-run by far left anarchists and commies"

What absurd nonsense! However, the Republicans overuse empty rhetoric - terms like "liberal", "socialism", "pinko" etc etc etc - to the point that they are absolutely meaningless. It is schoolyard name-calling by supposed adults, and cheapens political debate.

A year or so ago, I asserted in one of these political threads that the U.S. is by definition a liberal democracy. There are nuances, but your country is a textbook example of one. I was jumped on by the "conservatives", none of whom had any idea what a liberal actually was, and all of whom simply used it as what they thought was an insult, an empty one.
Mighty Hiker

Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Nov 6, 2008 - 10:21pm PT
John raises points of the kinds that the Republicans need to have an honest discussion about if that party is to have a future. I don't agree with all that he says.

The Republicans need to address some key issues, including:
 What are they FOR, not just what they are AGAINST.
 The proper role of the government, given that it is clear that it is needed as a moderating influence on economic and social excess, and that many problems can only be addressed by it.
 That their rhetorical opposition to government damages the country, and has been proven false. As a wealthy liberal democracy, like other developed countries, something like 40% of US GDP goes to government, altogether. A bit more in crisis, less in really good times. In the US, a bit more on the military, and a bit less on social programs. That will never change.
 Health care, which makes up 13% of GDP, a rapidly growing proportion. Much more than other countries with more efficient systems, and better results. A national embarrassment, only solvable by a national effort. A healthy country is one with a future.
 Education. An educated country is one with a future.
 Uniting instead of dividing, that is finding the golden mean.
 Honest recognition that many problems (environment, health care, economic regulation) can only be addressed if the government takes an active role.
 The importance of traditional American values, such as thrift, prudence, foresight, modest national pride, honesty, etc. The kinds of things that Obama talked about on Tuesday. Not the so-called "family values" which have been so abused.

In short, admitting that the Republican ideology of the last 40 years, and particularly the last 28 years, has largely proven bankrupt. Admitting that you were wrong is the most important step: "Hi. I'm John, and I'm a Republican." The first step of many.

There certainly is a need for a principled, strong conservative party, but also one that has regained its sanity.
apogee

climber
Nov 6, 2008 - 10:24pm PT
The terms of 'liberal' 'conservative' 'socialist' yadda, yadda, yadda HAVE become so overused, they are virtually worthless, except for the purposes of namecalling and ST spray & nuking. I have strong doubts that most people (myself included) who post here on ST have a clear understanding of these terms in their historical contexts, and instead understand them due to their interactions with their families, chosen friends & community.

A little research into the histories of these ideologies has shown me that very little dialogue that takes place in these political dialogues is based on historical (edit:) definitions of these ideologies. Without a clear understanding of the history, true meanings & core values of conservatism and the Republican party (edit:), it's pretty hard to have a discussion about how to 'restore conservatism'.

Bluering- I, too appreciate you starting this thread- it's a very good discussion. There's no question that the Democratic party could use some restoring, and that is a thread I will also appreciate. For now, I hope the focus can remain on your OP, and not be distracted by potshots or the obvious issues with liberalism/Democrats (whatever the hell that means).
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 6, 2008 - 11:20pm PT
Karl and Anders, you guys are high. To make it seem like Dems never make stupid calls is ridiculous and disengenuous.

Which party do you think anarchists and Marxists vote for? I didn't tell them to subscribe to this crap. They do though.

Wait, we were talking conservative values...
John Moosie

climber
Beautiful California
Nov 6, 2008 - 11:40pm PT
Blue,

Karl and Anders did not say that dems NEVER make stupid calls. They said that they aren't OVERRUN by by far left anarchists and commies.

You make it sound like that is ALL the dems are. Once again failing to recognize that they are the only party to balance the budget and start to pay down the national debt.

ah crap dude. I'm out of here.
stevep

Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
Nov 6, 2008 - 11:47pm PT
I'd guess not too many true anarchists, Marxists, Communists, etc. vote Democratic. If you're truly an anarchist, either you don't vote, or you vote for whoever you think is most likely to screw govt up and cause anarchy. The true Marxists would see the party as too conservative and too beholden to lobbyists.

Some of them might have voted for Nader or Ron Paul.
salad

climber
Escondido
Nov 7, 2008 - 01:01am PT
wow, mynameismud comes out from under his rock!
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Nov 7, 2008 - 01:12am PT
"Which party do you think anarchists and Marxists vote for?"

How many anarchists and Marxists do you think there are? Don't you think they favor third parties? Don't they have very little in common?

Understand that Anarchism (no government to be overly simple) is much closer to "conservative" values and those guys tend to be Libertarians.

Bluering. Never said that Democrats were infallible and my remark that Clinton and Bush 1 weren't very far apart is not necessarily a compliment to either.

We have to really open our minds. Who cares what these words like "conservative" and "liberal" mean? It's a new world and our system, perhaps you've noticed but haven't fully felt it yet, is crashing down!@@

So we should ask ourselves. What are our real values? What can work in our society? What is sustainable and unsustainable? How do we get to a point where maximum prosperity is reached by the maximum number of people while oppression is experienced to a minimum degree by the least number (or do you believe in "winner take all and the rest screw themselves?"

We may find that a combination of symbiotic values will contribute to a path that will lead us in a direction that we don't have the vision to comprehend at the moment. A new paradigm of society will be knocking on the door, as incomprehensible to us now as democracy was to feudal kingdoms of the middle ages. We are going to need "change" in a big way because, I think you'll see in the next few decades, change is coming whether we like it or not.

PEace

Karl
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 7, 2008 - 01:42am PT
Well. I susrvived my ordeal by piano (I had to virtually sight-read every chorus from Handel's Messiah because our regular accompanist was not able to be there tonight). My forearms feel like I've spent the last four hours in the gym.

Thanks for the good words. John Moosie, I'm not sure why you think I hate Democrats (as opposed to disagree with some of what they say). My mother, much of the rest of my family, and most of my friends are Democrats, and I certianly don't hate Obama. Anyone who's fed up with the BCS (I'd prefer they drop the "C") can't be all bad.

The only points I made about Democrats (as opposed to conservatives) in my post were that conservatives make lousy Democrats, and that modern Democrats have demonized corporations that provide essential goods and services.

I think the first point should be self-evident. I base my second comment (Point No. 4 in the post) on the constant attacks I've heard on oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, automobile manufacturers, developers, etc. by so many Democratic politicians and their supporters, including those here. Many Republican politicians commit the same sin, but many other Repulican politicians defend these same enterprises. When was the last time you heard a Democratic politician praising oil producers, or drug developers? I find that a legitimate and important difference between us.

Otherwise, I appreciate everyone's comments (Actually, I appreciate my critics' comment, too). The electorate has spoken, and we need all the help we can get.

John
Paul Martzen

Trad climber
Fresno
Nov 7, 2008 - 01:45am PT
What are the common values of different conservatives?
Say conservative:
ancient Athenians
ancient Spartans
ancient Persians
ancient Egyptians
Romans

conservative:
Muslims
Jews
Christians
Hindus

What about the conservatives in the old Soviet Union
or conservatives in Red China
What do conservatives in North Korea think are core conservative values?

What does it mean to be a conservative rock climber or a conservative skier?

Conservative has a meaning. It does not mean capitalism or free enterprise. It does not mean republican.

The true conservative is the person who:

Thinks about the long term consequences of actions.

At the kegger party is still sober enough to drive the others.

In the lifeboat, measures out the food available and says "this is how much we can eat today if we want to live for two weeks."

Was warning the Bush administration that invading Iraq might be a huge, expensive mess.

Is thinking that if we drill in ANWAR now we won't have that oil in 200 years when it might be a 100 times more needed and more valuable.

Is thinking it is a bad economic investment if we cut down all the 200 year old tree in order to build houses that will only last 70 or 80 years.

Is thinking that it is pretty crazy to take such a valuable resource as oil, that took millions of years to form, (or if one believes in abiogenisis, millions of years to collect) and we may be burning most of it up in 150 to 200 years.

JEleazarian wrote a list of items about conservatives. Some of your statements I really disagree with though I like most of your sentiments.

To say that the republicans lost because they are indistinguishable from the Democrats is silly, in my opinion. If that were the case the vote would have been a random 50/50. I think for the time being, the Republicans have shown that they are the less reasonable, less rational and less conservative party.
You also wrote that conservatives stand for Freedom of Speech, and equality of all humans. These are by definition liberal ideas. They are only conservative ideas in the sense that they have been around so long in liberal societies that they are no longer controversial in those societies.

wikipedia has excellent and informative discussions and history of both liberalism and conservatism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservativism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

All the economic ideas claimed by conservatives these day, such as capitalism, freedom of the press, free speech, individual liberty, individual worth based on accomplishments are all liberal ideas. They only became conservative ideas after they were around long enough to become part of our tradition. Even if they are now also conservative ideas, they still remain liberal ideas.


apogee

climber
Nov 7, 2008 - 02:04am PT
Paul-

Yeah, I did some wiki-research today, and read those articles- they are a pretty good primer on the historical definitions of liberalism, conservatism, and republicanism.

If I remember correctly, an important fact is that Republicanism was one of the original ideologies during the founding of the country, and at that time the corollary party were the Federalists. Eventually, the Federalists faded away, and the Republican Party renamed itself the Democratic-Republican party, which eventually split again into the parties we know today.

This is interesting, because if you read the core values of the original Republican ideology (later the Rep-Dem party), they are based in the same values: individual sovereignty & freedom, and a disdain for corruption in the leadership. No doubt, these are values that both parties still share (even if they don't achieve them).

You are correct- conservatism is not solely a Republican trait- historically, there has also been Liberal conservatism, and Conservative liberalism (and Libertarian conservatism, and Cultural conservatism, and Religious conservatism, and...). It is only in recent years that it has become associated with the Reps.

It is interesting to realize just how politicized these words have become, and how they are flung at the opposing party as some kind of jibe, when in fact, both parties truly share core values.

By the way, the roots of conservatism are way deeper than contemporaries like Goldwater or Adam Smith- try Marcus Porcius Cato ('Cato the Younger'):
Paul Martzen

Trad climber
Fresno
Nov 7, 2008 - 02:06am PT
hey John,

My sympathies to your arms. I don't play, but I sing and very much appreciate the efforts of the accompanist. Where were you playing?

Your point about Democrats excessively attacking corporations has merit, I think. But the tendency to demonize almost anybody seems to be rampant in our political process and in political discussions. Each group picks an acceptable scapegoat on whom to vent. Totally non productive in my opinion, but it seems like it brings people together temporarily against their common enemy. It also lends credence to the idea that we seek out ways to vent anger, we look for targets to be angry at. A better political system will have to find a way to deal with this tendency.
John Moosie

climber
Beautiful California
Nov 7, 2008 - 02:12am PT
Okay John. It still feels to me that you are bashing dems, but if you say you aren't then I will accept that.

As far as what I demonize about corporations. I demonize them when they strip forests and don't follow sustainable practices such as when Maaxam bought Pacific Lumber company and proceeded to strip it of its assets by over cutting and destroying a lumber company that had followed sustainable practices for over 150 years, ultimately destroying the company and putting many many people out of work all in the name of fast profits while protecting the CEO from lawsuits under corporate law.

I demonize corporations that pay their CEOs extreme wages while undercutting their employees. Too many examples to cite.

I demonize them when they use their massive size to drive out the small competitors and are only reigned in once they have destroyed everything in sight. Walmart comes to mind and so does microsoft.

I demonize them when they use their massive size to cheat and hide their profits by using offshore accounts or hide their loses thus driving up their stocks then taking massive profits from stock sales which ends up bankrupting the company and leaving their employees broke as exampled by Enron.

I demonize them when they rob from their employees retirement accounts, take short term profits and then need bailing out by the government because they are so big that if we let them fail, then it could destroy our economy as evidenced by the auto and banking industry.

I don't know how to fix this but I do Know that the deregulation called for by Republicans over and over for the last 40 years has helped them do these things.

Do I favor making laws so restrictive that no business can survive? Most definitely not and I have sat in on city council meetings as rules were discussed to try and help small local businesses.

I hope that some day we can figure out a way to help small businesses thrive. I have even considered the idea of doing away with the laws that allow the formation of corporations and go back to partnerships. Partnership laws tend to favor small businesses.

I don't know which party does these things better. I don't care because I try to vote for the best candidate in each race and not follow strict party lines. But for the last 20 years the republicans have gone back on their words more the the dems and so I have tended to vote democrat.

As I said earlier. In history no republican president has ever offered a balanced budget.

The republicans had a history of protecting the environment, but they have gone back on that once again in the name of profit and deregulation. I would prefer to give our children a clean planet. Not a polluted one simply because someone wanted bigger profits then they could have achieved by using sustainable practices.

I don't think that is too much to ask.

Edit: I concur with Paul, I don't play the piano but I use to sing and I always appreciated the hard work of the accompanist.
John Moosie

climber
Beautiful California
Nov 7, 2008 - 02:29am PT
Really nice posts Paul and Apogee. Thank you.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Nov 7, 2008 - 03:11am PT
"You also wrote that conservatives stand for Freedom of Speech, and equality of all humans. These are by definition liberal ideas. They are only conservative ideas in the sense that they have been around so long in liberal societies that they are no longer controversial in those societies."

Very interesting point and part of a great post.

Great post as well Moosie.

Corporations are not by definition bad but when an entity has the rights of a person but not the liabilities of a person (can't go to jail) and is, by law, obligated to pursue selfish advantage and interest over the common good, then that power is easily abused.

having worked in a management role in a corporation myself, I've witnessed how group-think and corporate culture can lead even good people to jump on a bandwagon to exploit. Keeping a critical eye on corporate action is an important check in our system which benefits greatly from checks and balances.

Think about it. Say Joe Blow came out with a new idea that couldn't be protected by a patent that totally cured a disease or solved an environmental problem that some mega-corporation was making most of their money "treating" How many of you would have faith that they would do nothing to suppress that information? It's a theoretical assumption (I hope) but smaller versions of this dynamic are at play every day (drug companies don't seek cures, they seeks chronic treatments you have to take for life)

peace

Karl
jstan

climber
Nov 7, 2008 - 07:49am PT
Right this very moment the Supreme Court is being asked by the Bush administration( which runs the FDA) to rule that the drug companies CANNOT BE SUED for any drug caused damage

as long as the FDA has ruled the drug is safe.

This places the drug companies beyond the reach of people who are damaged by their products.

Can I sue the government?

Is the FDA perfect?

It appears not. The FDA just said bisphenol A is no problem. Then another panel in the FDA said the ruling came down without looking at all the data.

Do you suppose the FDA could ever become a captive of big Pharma?

The FDA also says I as a producer of beef cannot test my beef for mad cow. That is the government's job. And then government then stopped all testing and reduced the number of inspectors in packing plants.


Generally corporations have one and only one objective. To make a profit.

Today's american corporations follow a modification of this:
1. Make the maximum possible profit
2. maximum possible profit - for the CEO
The CEO appoints the directors who are supposed to protect the shareholders. So we get $400,000,000 bonuses going to CEO's as their shareholders go broke.
3. this quarter. Forget next quarter.


Paul I like your reasoning. Tell me I have no reason to criticize corporations. Please.

Oh and yes. Roberts and Alito have said they are in favor of giving complete legal immunity to Big Pharma. The rest of the court has not decided.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 7, 2008 - 10:11am PT
Thanks, Paul and John, for the good words on accompanists. Paul, I sing with Fresno Choral Artists. an auditioned chamber chorale of about 30, although we're augmented to about 50 for Messiah by adding the Clovis High chamber chorale. We try to do something with high school singers for one concert every year. The Messiah concert is at 4:00 p.m. December 14, at the Shrine of St. Therese, to continue the tradition of the shameless plug.

I like your point, Paul, about demonizing. I was guilty of that in my Point 4, for which I apologize. I should have pointed to the excesses and points of disagreement, as John M. did in his reply on corporations. Demonizing seems to me to be a staple of populism, which fits poorly with conservatism.

John M, thanks for the manner and clarity in which you laid out your position. Of course, we still disagree on much of what you said, but that leads to an exchange of ideas, not hatred. I'd start some of that exchange now, but I need to get to work.

I thank all of the contributors, and espectially bluering,for starting and maintaining this outstanding, if OT, thread.

John
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 7, 2008 - 10:23am PT
jstan,

The issue before the Supreme Court is whether a drug company can be sued if its label was approved by the FDA, and the patient used the drug in a way that the label specifically warned against. The hospital and doctor used the procedure warned against in the FDA-approved warning label. The question is whether the plaintiff, who lost her arm as a result, can sue the drug manufacturer, who followed FDA rules. While reasonable minds can differ, I side with the manufacturer. Sometimes the nearest deep pocket should not be the one paying for the injury.

I had a case like that about 30 years ago, in which a solvent manufacturer was required by the Feds to label its product as flammable. An electronic forklift operator drove his forklift up to an open vat of the stuff, and it exploded. His widow sued the manufacturer for labeling the solvent "flammable" rather than "explosive." Needless to say, the trial ended in a verdict for the widow. The court of appeal properly reversed, ruling you cannot sue a manufacturer for doing what the federal regulators require you to do. It was unfortunate, but the manufacturer was no more at fault than the widow. That's why we buy insurance, because we can't sue the government for its regulatory mistakes. Maybe that's why we conservatives want limited government.

John
jstan

climber
Nov 7, 2008 - 10:48am PT
Thanks JE. I hear what you are saying.

From what I read the problem is this drug when administered by the "push" technique does lead to the loss sustained. This was known to all. The legal argument has come down to the warning label being written correctly. Faced with the gain/risk of this drug you have to ask why the FDA considered a warning label was adequate. A warning label was not the correct resolution.

I think the new thing that has now come into the equation is a major loss of the FDA's credibility. So a Supreme Court ruling against liability will make this entire area unsupportable.

You come away believing we are dealing very simply with conflict of interest. Our citizens are not being served.
Dingus Milktoast

climber
Nov 7, 2008 - 10:57am PT
Step one for Restoring Conservatism...

(repeat after me...)

"We the People..."

"WE the People..."

"WE the people.."

Not YOU the people. Not some of you the people.

Not ME the People.

WE.... the people.

Incorporate that into your political worldview. Its a novel concept - to think beyond one's own personal needs and wants.

But doing so is a vital Step One... first you must recognize the problem (in the mirror)

That is all.

Good day.

DMT
Binks

Social climber
Nov 7, 2008 - 12:18pm PT
I just read an article on CNN claiming that some conservatives feel they lost because they feel that they were "too moderate". They feel that the overturn of gay marriage shows that "true conservatism" is still strong.

"Pointing to measures in California, Florida and Arizona barring same-sex marriage that passed Tuesday, Perkins said President-elect Barack Obama's election did not mean the country had embraced liberal social views.

"There was clearly no mandate to shift the country to the left on social issues," Perkins said. "What Tuesday was, was a fact that people wanted change, and it's a rejection of a moderate view."


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/07/conservatives.election/index.html



I was speechless. GOP -still pushing onward with the great goals of bigotry, discrimination and reinforcement of societal division.

As long as these whackos control the direction of the GOP, I will fight tooth and nail against Republicans.

Another thing I can't stand about the GOP is it's anti-intellectualism. It's celebration of ineptitude and stupidity (Bush, Palin). I don't care if conservatism is somehow philosophically viable when it's actual results are horrible. "Judge me on my philosophy and not the results I produce says the modern conservative".

For all the talk of the Democrats being against corporations, it sure seems to me that corporations of all sorts thrived and prospered under Clinton. It will be the same under Obama, once we emerge from the crisis we are in now.
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Arid-zona
Nov 7, 2008 - 12:24pm PT
Binks-

Yes this is the idea being pushed hard by Rush/Sean and the other right wing radio hatemongers. It's political suicide. America's eyes are open to the extremism that has an icy grip on the Republican party and if they continue on the path they have been on these last 16 years they will simply ensure a long, long Democratic majority.

The answer, though, is NOT to "fight tooth and nail against Repubs" but to build solid bridges with the moderates that are left and affect real, moderate common sense change. We need to open up dialogues with real Republicans so that they can see "wow...democrats and liberals aren't what these radio show wingnuts say they are." We need to start working together not tearing other apart. That is what Obama's candidacy was all about, regardless of what Fatty has been trying to mischaracterize it as.
jstan

climber
Nov 7, 2008 - 12:27pm PT
SO!!!!!!

We have found a positive in Prop 8!

And agreed HD. Obama will find those old Republicans. And either build them into a loyal and rational opposition or bring them into the Democratic Party.

He has already said he needs their counsel and support.

Those who believe in the Nixon/Rove spider web party model will go on. That is the only thing they know.
Binks

Social climber
Nov 7, 2008 - 12:29pm PT
"The answer, though, is NOT to "fight tooth and nail against Repubs" but to build solid bridges with the moderates that are left and affect real, moderate common sense change."

I agree, no more bridges to nowhere. It's the politics of division that I will fight against, and those are still being embraced by the GOP "base". It upsets me when I look at the mess we are in and I read articles that the primary focus of the GOP is still on gay marriage. That they think this kind of focus is the way forward. The GOP base is comprised of a huge percentage of single issue voters.
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Arid-zona
Nov 7, 2008 - 12:31pm PT
Agreed. We know we can successfully defend against them though. 2008 is not 2004. People are much quicker to see the truth now.
Mighty Hiker

Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Nov 7, 2008 - 12:41pm PT
Fascinating - I used to be a director of a local but quite well-known chamber choir. I didn't sing, but helped in other ways. Though I guess we don't all sing from the same song book. :-)

I'm afraid that what the Republicans may now need is a repeat drubbing, so that the lesson sinks in. Few thinkers would disagree that the party is an unwieldy coalition at best, held together by power, or that it has lost its credibility, or any energy. The ideas that it was peddling have largely lost any force they had, and the party is bereft of new, forward-thinking ideas. But a lot of the Republican rank and file may not see it that way, until convinced again at the polls.

It may take someone with substantial heft in the Republican party to simply get up and say the emperor has no clothes. Such as those Republicans who endorsed Obama, such as Powell. That would at least get some real issues on the table.

It seems possible that the Republicans will degenerate into a civil war, as the various factions squabble for control of what's left. Big corporations v social 'values' v religious right v rural working class v traditional conservatives could be quite messy.
dirtbag

climber
Nov 7, 2008 - 01:35pm PT
Now here's a political challenge for you restorers of conservatism.

Conservatism is seen as a cause for aging white people. The identities of voters and splits between dems and repubs bear this out.

You are appealing to a demographic that in the long term, cannot win national contests because white people will no longer be the majority in a few decades. And, this problem is compounded by the recent surge in voter registration among the young, who are tending to register as Dems. Party affiliation sometimes change as people age, but studies show that folks generally stick with the parties they choose early on.

What are you guys going to do about the demographic problems? How will you broaden your appeal?
apogee

climber
Nov 7, 2008 - 01:44pm PT
It does appear that there is a shift in demographics, and that at least in this election, there was an infusion of younger voters who tend to lean Democratic. My guess would be that younger voters tend to be attracted to open-mindedness and less dogmatic attitude, which is more likely to be found in the current Democratic party.

Much of the closed-mindness and dogma in the current Republican party comes from the religious right- if this influence and presence was tempered, and more of the R's identity and policies were based on core values such as fiscal responsibility, there would be plenty of younger voters who could get on board with this. Any loss of votes that might occur on the extreme right would likely be more than offset by the gains from the youth vote.
nita

climber
chica from chico, I don't claim to be a daisy
Nov 7, 2008 - 01:57pm PT
Hey Bluey, did you ever listen to the show i posted? If no-here it is again. If your not into the first talk with Bill Moyer, give the second on a listen..It does address your question.


http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=4&islist=true&id=13&d=11-05-2008
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Nov 7, 2008 - 02:11pm PT
Dirt, The Republicans have shown no willingness to appeal to any group that is not right of center. They cannot, will not, change their bullheaded intolerance regarding social issues because that would mean that they were "wrong". Democrats are now seen as the party to trust on national security and fiscal responsiblities (Iraq and massive deficit increase for six solid years from 2000 to 2006 with Repups in charge of all three branches of government). They got nothing to sell anymore, they appeal to an ever shrinking voting bloc. They lose big time to the rapidly growing latino voters, women, and very importantly the younger voters, who will now strongly tend to vote Democratic for the rest of their lives. Church is out for generations.
jstan

climber
Nov 7, 2008 - 02:37pm PT
Have not seen this transcript on ST. A mainline Republican:

http://www.clipsandcomment.com/2008/10/19/transcript-colin-powell-on-meet-the-press-endorses-barack-obama-october-19/

EXCERPT OF INTERVIEW

MR. BROKAW: General Powell, actually you gave a campaign contribution to Senator McCain. You have met twice at least with Barack Obama. Are you prepared to make a public declaration of which of these two candidates that you’re prepared to support?


GEN. POWELL: Yes, but let me lead into it this way. I know both of these individuals very well now. I’ve known John for 25 years as your setup said. And I’ve gotten to know Mr. Obama quite well over the past two years. Both of them are distinguished Americans who are patriotic, who are dedicated to the welfare of our country. Either one of them, I think, would be a good president. I have said to Mr. McCain that I admire all he has done. I have some concerns about the direction that the party has taken in recent years. It has moved more to the right than I would like to see it, but that’s a choice the party makes. And I’ve said to Mr. Obama, “You have to pass a test of do you have enough experience, and do you bring the judgment to the table that would give us confidence that you would be a good president.”


And I’ve watched him over the past two years, frankly, and I’ve had this conversation with him. I have especially watched over the last six of seven weeks as both of them have really taken a final exam with respect to this economic crisis that we are in and coming out of the conventions. And I must say that I’ve gotten a good measure of both. In the case of Mr. McCain, I found that he was a little unsure as to deal with the economic problems that we were having and almost every day there was a different approach to the problem. And that concerned me, sensing that he didn’t have a complete grasp of the economic problems that we had. And I was also concerned at the selection of Governor Palin. She’s a very distinguished woman, and she’s to be admired; but at the same time, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don’t believe she’s ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president. And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made.




On the Obama side, I watched Mr. Obama and I watched him during this seven-week period. And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this and picking a vice president that, I think, is ready to be president on day one. And also, in not just jumping in and changing every day, but showing intellectual vigor. I think that he has a, a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well. I also believe that on the Republican side over the last seven weeks, the approach of the Republican Party and Mr. McCain has become narrower and narrower. Mr. Obama, at the same time, has given us a more inclusive, broader reach into the needs and aspirations of our people. He’s crossing lines–ethnic lines, racial lines, generational lines. He’s thinking about all villages have values, all towns have values, not just small towns have values.


And I’ve also been disappointed, frankly, by some of the approaches that Senator McCain has taken recently, or his campaign ads, on issues that are not really central to the problems that the American people are worried about. This Bill Ayers situation that’s been going on for weeks became something of a central point of the campaign. But Mr. McCain says that he’s a washed-out terrorist. Well, then, why do we keep talking about him? And why do we have these robocalls going on around the country trying to suggest that, because of this very, very limited relationship that Senator Obama has had with Mr. Ayers, somehow, Mr. Obama is tainted. What they’re trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings. And I think that’s inappropriate.


Now, I understand what politics is all about. I know how you can go after one another, and that’s good. But I think this goes too far. And I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It’s not what the American people are looking for. And I look at these kinds of approaches to the campaign and they trouble me. And the party has moved even further to the right, and Governor Palin has indicated a further rightward shift. I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that’s what we’d be looking at in a McCain administration. I’m also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, “Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.” Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he’s a Christian. He’s always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer’s no, that’s not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, “He’s a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists.” This is not the way we should be doing it in America.


I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son’s grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards–Purple Heart, Bronze Star–showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn’t have a Christian cross, it didn’t have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I’m troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions.


So, when I look at all of this and I think back to my Army career, we’ve got two individuals, either one of them could be a good president. But which is the president that we need now? Which is the individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of time? And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities–and we have to take that into account–as well as his substance–he has both style and substance–he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president. I think he is a transformational figure. He is a new generation coming into the world–onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I’ll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.


MR. BROKAW: Will you be campaigning for him as well?


GEN. POWELL: I don’t plan to. Two weeks left, let them go at each other in the finest tradition. But I will be voting for him.


MR. BROKAW: I can already anticipate some of the reaction to this. Let’s begin with the charge that John McCain has continued to make against Barack Obama. You sit there, as a man who served in Vietnam, you commanded a battalion of 101st, you were chairman of the Joint Chiefs, you were a national security adviser and secretary of state. There is nothing in Barack Obama’s history that nearly paralyze any–parallels any of the experiences that you’ve had. And while he has performed impressively in the context of the campaign, there’s a vast difference between sitting in the Oval Office and making tough decisions and doing well in a campaign.


GEN. POWELL: And he knows that. And I have watched him over the last two years as he has educated himself, as he has become very familiar with these issues. He speaks authoritatively. He speaks with great insight into the challenges we’re facing of a military and political and economic nature. And he is surrounding himself, I’m confident, with people who’ll be able to give him the expertise that he, at the moment, does not have. And so I have watched an individual who has intellectual vigor and who dives deeply into issues and approaches issues with a very, very steady hand. And so I’m confident that he will be ready to take on these challenges on January 21st.


MR. BROKAW: And you are fully aware that there will be some–how many, no one can say for sure–but there will be some who will say this is an African-American, distinguished American, supporting another African-American because of race.


GEN. POWELL: If I had only had that in mind, I could have done this six, eight, 10 months ago. I really have been going back and forth between somebody I have the highest respect and regard for, John McCain, and somebody I was getting to know, Barack Obama. And it was only in the last couple of months that I settled on this. And I can’t deny that it will be a historic event for an African-American to become president. And should that happen, all Americans should be proud–not just African-Americans, but all Americans–that we have reached this point in our national history where such a thing could happen. It will also not only electrify our country, I think it’ll electrify the world.


MR. BROKAW: You have some differences with Barack Obama. He has said that once he takes office, he wants to begin removing American troops from Iraq. Here’s what you had to say about that: “I have found in my many years of service, to set arbitrary dates that don’t coincide with the situation on the ground or what actually is happening tends not to be a useful strategy. … Arbitrary deadlines that are snatched out of the air and are based on some lunar calculation is not the way to run a military or a strategic operation of this type.” That was on February 10th of this year on CNN. Now that you have Barack Obama’s ear in a new fashion, will you say to him, “Drop your idea of setting a deadline of some kind to pull the troops out of Iraq”?


GEN. POWELL: First of all, I think that’s a great line, and thanks for pulling it up. And I believe that. But as I watch what’s happening right now, the United States is negotiating the–an agreement with the Iraqi government that will call for most major combat operations to cease by next June and for American forces to start withdrawing to their bases. And that agreement will also provide for all American troops to be gone by 2011, but conditioned on the situation as it exists at that time. So there already is a timeline that’s being developed between the Iraqis and the United States government. So I think whoever becomes the president, whether it’s John McCain or whether it’s Barack Obama, we’re going to see a continued drawdown. And when, you know, which day so many troops come out or what units come out, that’ll be determined by the commanders and the new president. But I think we are on a glide path to reducing our presence in Iraq over the next couple of years. Increasingly, this problem’s going to be solved by the Iraqis. They’re going to make the political decisions, their security forces are going to take over, and they’re going to have to create an environment of reconciliation where all the people can come together and make Iraq a much, much better place.


MR. BROKAW: Let me go back to something that you raised just a moment ago, and that’s William Ayers, a former member of the Weathermen who’s now active in school issues in Illinois. He had some past association with Barack Obama. Wouldn’t it have been more helpful for William Ayers to, on his own, to have renounced his own past? Here was a man who was a part of the most radical group that existed in America at a time when you were serving in Vietnam, targeting the Pentagon, the Capitol. He wrote a book about it that came out on 2001, on September 11th that said, “We didn’t bomb enough.”


GEN. POWELL: It’s despicable, and I have no truck for William Ayers. I think what he did was despicable, and to continue to talk about it in 2001 is also despicable. But to suggest that because Mr. Barack Obama had some contacts of a very casual nature–they sat on a educational board–over time is somehow connected to his thinking or his actions, I think, is a, a terrible stretch. It’s demagoguery.

dirtbag

climber
Nov 7, 2008 - 02:40pm PT
Norton, I understand that, which is one of the reasons why they are struggling today. But Bluering basically opened this thread up for suggestions, so if they are going to change and be successful, they need to account for this.

One of the good things that Bush tried to do to actually increase the appeal of his party was supporting a moderate immigration bill. I also think he genuinely holds moderate views on the issue. Bush did pretty well with Latinos and saw an opening to increase GOP appeal among this demographic. But in 2005, the GOP decided to take a hard line approach to immigration. Obama easily defeated McCain among Latino voters.

They must broaden their appeal if they wish to ever prevail.

Not that I really care because I am not a conservative.
apogee

climber
Nov 7, 2008 - 02:56pm PT
Bluering's op is about solutions, not restating the problem- this has been done ad nauseum on ST and throughout the country. If you really have enough animosity towards the GOP that you really don't care, that is understandable. I, too have had great disagreement with their policies and direction for many years, but rational, solution-oriented threads like this help increase my understanding of others who I disagree with. Let's focus the comments in that direction, please.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Nov 9, 2008 - 07:20am PT
pj o'rourke says it quite well:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/791jsebl.asp?pg=1
jstan

climber
Nov 9, 2008 - 08:57am PT
Apogee:
I did not post that because it deals with a now dead issue. i posted it because it shows the organized thinking of an old mainline republican as he explains how he chose among alternatives.

Sorry for not making that more clear.
klinefelter

Boulder climber
Bishop, CA
Nov 9, 2008 - 12:08pm PT
Bluering, I just wish other conservatives had the same candor and humility that O'Rourke does. Unfortunately, the idiots that most conservatives listen to, absorbing their talking points like brainless sponges, are less reasonable. Get ready for the, uhh, Obama Recession? Gimme a f#@king break.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Nov 10, 2008 - 08:47pm PT
From the Daily Kos, this article on Constructive Criticism for Conservatives seems well written, and appropriate for this thread on Restoring Conservatism.

Constructive Criticism for Conservatives
by Erasmussimo
Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 05:28:41 PM PST
OK, you got clobbered. You've lost the White House and Congress. For at least the next two years, you're going to be on the outside looking in. You might be able to block some of the most egregious leftward moves, but for the most part you're going to have to stand on the sidelines and watch as the Democrats get their turn to run things.

Although I object to some parts of your political philosophy, I believe that our democracy is better when there is robust political competition between the two parties. With that in mind, I'd like to describe what I think is the single most fundamental mistake that you as a group have been making for at least the last eight years: you have lost your internal skepticism and compromised your dedication to rationalism.

By internal skepticism, I mean the nagging uncertainty that checks you before you make a decision: "Am I really sure that this is right?" A good thinker is always most skeptical of what he wants to believe, always trying to beat up his favorite beliefs to insure that they're correct. And over the last eight years I have seen repeated cases of conservatives giving short shrift to their internal skepticism.

Erasmussimo's diary :: ::
Let's start with the most obvious case: creationism. Now, I realize that creationism is not quite a signature of the conservative movement -- but I think we'd have to agree that the vast majority of creationists are conservatives, and very few creationists are liberal. Although there are plenty of rational conservatives who reject creationism just as forcefully as liberals, there remain a large number of "closet creationists" in the conservative movement. They're the most extreme example of "wishful belief": they believe something despite the overwhelming evidence against it. Now, I myself don't think that this is terribly important; if you want to reject evolution for creationism, that's your business and I really don't care. But the embrace of creationism is an indication of a willingness to reject even a modicum of rationalism. I urge Republicans to tell creationists, "We appreciate your support, but we cannot accept your beliefs as a part of our political philosophy, because we believe in rationalism." I realize that this will cost you votes -- but I argue that the overall attitude of anti-rationalism costs you even more votes.

Here's another example of anti-rationalism in the conservative movement: the rejection of the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. Let's face it, folks: the opposition to the AGW hypothesis is an anti-rational conspiracy theory. The huge weight of scientific evidence falls in favor of the AGW hypothesis. Recognizing this, both Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain, who surely can't be called liberals, have grudgingly accepted the AGW hypothesis. Your best and your brightest accept AGW; why do you encourage the anti-rationalists who reject it? Again, your best option here is to insist that the Republican party endorses rationalism and embraces the AGW hypothesis.

The effects of anti-rationalism and a rejection of internal skepticism can be disastrous. Consider, for example, Mr. Bush's handling of the Iraq War. He went into the war loudly declaring that Iraq possessed WMD. Why? Because he had intelligence to support that belief. Yet we now know that his Administration actively promoted intelligence that supported their preconception, and minimized intelligence that called their preconception into question. Had Mr. Bush surrounded himself with skeptical minds who challenged assumptions, it is likely that he would have concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the claim of WMD in Iraq and not proceeded with the invasion -- and America would be a lot better off today.

Another example is the handling of the occupation. The Bush Administration chose to believe that the Iraqi people would welcome us with open arms and we would not need a large occupation force -- despite warnings from the Pentagon. Generals who expressed doubts about the chances of success with only 150,000 men were replaced with generals beaming with optimism. Optimism is a nice thing -- but when it's misplaced, it just leads to disaster. Had Mr. Bush heeded the warnings of the brass early in the occupation, we would already be out of Iraq, and it would be a happier place than it now is.

I realize that you will disagree with me about some of these details. I don't want to try to convince you that the invasion of Iraq was wrong. My point here is that, had Mr. Bush been more skeptical, more willing to listen to people saying things he didn't want to hear, America would be better off and the Republican brand would not be so tarnished.

There are a great many minor examples of inadequate skepticism or flat out anti-rationalism among conservatives. How about the claims floating around that Mr. Obama is a Muslim? That's a flat lie, and all the reasonable conservatives rejected it -- but the lie kept circulating through the conservative movement. Mentions of it kept popping up over and over -- and the rational conservatives, who should have put a stop to that nonsense, went along with it.

Or let's consider the many suggestions that Mr. Obama is a communist or a Marxist. Those are patently ridiculous, but the rumors just wouldn't go away. Even the suggestion that he is a socialist is absurd -- his talk of increasing the progressivity of the income tax would merely revert American tax policy to where it was in the 1950s -- and no, America was not a socialist country in the 1950s. Although Mr. McCain never bandied about that trash-talk, his running mate did, and conservative discussions were rife with accusations that Mr. Obama is a socialist. Where were the rational conservatives who should have ridiculed such talk? They were nowhere to be found. I know they're out there -- I've spoken with many of them. But they seemed to feel that the anti-rationalists were too powerful and too important to be offended.

You may well defend yourself with the observation that there were plenty of left-wingers who smeared Mr. McCain in much the same way. I disagree. Yes, of course, there was plenty of trash-talk coming out of the left as well as the right -- but the leftist criticisms of Mr. McCain were much more reserved. I heard plenty of accusations from the right that Mr. Obama is a socialist, but I heard damn few accusations from the left that Mr. McCain is a fascist. Mr. Obama's patriotism or "Americanism" was denigrated on a daily basis, where just about everybody on the left bent over backwards to recognize Mr. McCain's heroism in captivity. I'm sure that we'll always disagree on the magnitude of these matters, but I think it fair to claim that the more wild-eyed accusations came from the right.

Consider how Republican optimism led to the current financial crisis. I realize that there are many, many factors that got us into this hole, and many of those factors were out of control of the government. But two factors stand out as contributing to the disaster. The first is the huge deficit that Mr. Bush saddled us with. This was a very indirect factor and a small one -- but it definitely contributed. Much more important was the overly optimistic approach to financial regulation. It was Republicans who stymied every effort to tighten up the regulatory system, and the lack of regulation was a major factor in the financial disaster. Again, the mistake was a failure of internal skepticism -- a sunny belief that large financial institutions would do "the right thing" without government intervention. And that lack of skepticism proved to be disastrous.

Again, I don't want to offend you here -- if you refuse to believe some of my points, that's fine. But there is a definite pattern here for your consideration. The conservative movement has been infiltrated by anti-rationalism, and that attitude will poison your movement. You have a core of about 25% of the American public that is fiercely loyal to the conservative cause, and some portion of that group is ferociously anti-rational. But the fact remains that a far larger number of Americans are pretty rational. They really do listen to the facts. When people on your side claimed that Mr. Obama is a socialist, many Americans concluded that your side is crazy.

Another symptom of anti-rationalism in the Republican Party is the rejection of education and intellectualism. Just look at the educational credentials of Mr. Bush, Mr. McCain, and Ms. Palin. Compare them with the educational credentials of Mr. Clinton (a Rhodes scholar), or Mr. Obama. I don't expect you to agree with me on this point, but Mr. Obama and Mr. Clinton are both obviously (to me) more intelligent than Mr. Bush, Mr. McCain, or Ms Palin. Why is it that your party seems so enamored of such dumb people? I know that there are brilliant conservatives -- how come you don't give leadership positions to them? Some of your denigrations of Mr. Obama -- that he's "elitist", "not like us", and "merely eloquent" -- were, in my opinion, spin words for "smart". And the frequent approving comments that Mr. Bush, Mr. McCain, and Ms. Palin were people you'd like to have a beer with are, in my opinion, ways to spin the fact that they're obviously pretty dumb.

I realize that you have a tough dilemma here. The anti-rationalists in your ranks have plenty of passion, energy, dedication, and discipline. They're powerful. But they are also taking you down a path to ruin. You cannot command the respect of the American people with a political philosophy that is fundamentally anti-rational. As you reconsider your political philosophy, you will be forced to choose between the anti-rationalists (personified by Ms. Palin) and the rationalists, who at present have no leading representative. If Ms. Palin's partisans take control of the Republican Party, then it will suffer a crushing defeat in 2012 and your party will be politically impotent until at least 2016. If you start rebuilding your party on rationalist foundations, you'll need to convince those anti-rationalists to abandon some of their wilder beliefs. You may lose their passion and energy for a time. But at least you will have a future.

I apologize if I have offended you. I acknowledge that you will reject many of my points. But again, I implore you to look at the big picture. Right now, the Democrats have a lock on the rationalism angle. Until you can meet and defeat them on that field of battle, you will continue to lose.

tom woods

Gym climber
Bishop, CA
Nov 10, 2008 - 09:10pm PT
Problem is the Republican Party needs the social conservatives. Fiscals and small government types aren't enough to win. They need the social conservatives. It's a numbers game.

Tom
Mighty Hiker

Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Nov 10, 2008 - 09:14pm PT
Demographics are a huge challenge for the Republicans, in terms of stitching together a sustainable party. The make-up of the US has changed significantly, and in some ways the election was a result of that.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 10, 2008 - 09:33pm PT
"Demographics are a huge challenge for the Republicans, in terms of stitching together a sustainable party. "

That's why they should quit pandering to certain groups and run with a traditional conservative platform, which is overwhelmngly popular with most working people. Quit the nuanced headnods to the NRA, churches, NASCAR, whatever. Run a message and a platform, not a photo-op.
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Arid-zona
Nov 11, 2008 - 10:58am PT
bluering that might be the smartest thing you've ever said.



Also....



The Gingrinch might be back!

And just in time for Christmans! But has is heart grown any bigger? Word is he'll be running for President in 2012 most likely. Apparently Republicans think they need to get back to the roots of reign of negativity and divisiveness. We'll see but I had hoped that they were smarter than this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/us/politics/11repubs.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

“We need to be honest about the level of failure for the past eight years and why Republican government didn’t succeed,” said Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, who has played an increasingly assertive role in the debate over the party’s future. “Otherwise, we’ll get back in power again and do the same things again.”
Binks

Social climber
Nov 11, 2008 - 11:35am PT
Conservatism and Liberalism are BOTH dead. May neither one ever rise again.

Obama is something entirely different, a true independent. That is the best thing about him. In 2016, after he finishes his second term what we thought of Democrat and Republican will have completely ceased to exist.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 11, 2008 - 11:59am PT
"Obama is something entirely different, a true independent. "

WTF??? He's clearly one of the most liberal senators and he hasn't even done anything yet, just a bunch of rhetoric. A true independant...whatever.
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Arid-zona
Nov 11, 2008 - 12:00pm PT
bluering- Just curious but can you actually point to any of the MOST LIBERAL things he has done as Senator? Or are you just parroting the now stale Republican election propaganda? You know the election is over right? Screaming MOST LIBERAL doesn't really accomplish your goal of "restoring conservatism."

In any case Obama ran on a bipartisan platform. "True independent" or not I think we're going to see a lot of common sense action from him.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 11, 2008 - 12:06pm PT
http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/01/obama_ranked_most_liberal_sena_1.html

Not exactly a 'righ-wing smear merchant'. And my point is he hasn't even done anything yet, can we wait and see before we annoint him as messiah?
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Nov 11, 2008 - 12:18pm PT
Obama is not "liberal" enough for me. He should have come out in favor of a constitutional amendment to legalize same sex marriage. Physician assisted suicide for terminal conditions should also be made legal in every state.
You can't get "liberal" enough for me.
jstan

climber
Nov 11, 2008 - 12:31pm PT
Seems to me, right now we have exactly what we most need to have. One, perhaps two parties that really don't have a plate loaded with beliefs for us to accept.

There really are not many people left who are confused as to what we don't want. George has given us a great gift. We don't want what we have had for the past eight years.

So it's fantastic! In the near term it is up to each of us, all by ourselves, to decide what we do want.

P.S.
Great thread.
Binks

Social climber
Nov 11, 2008 - 12:34pm PT
Bluering, Obama is no liberal. I think you've forgotten what left wing liberalism really is. You need to drive around Berkeley more often. Obama is not even close to that crap and never will be. He is more conservative than GW Bush ever was in fiscal matters and will be a centrist socially.

McCain was more or less centrist, but picking Palin was equivalent to the idea of Obama picking someone from Earth First! to be VP. The whackos are solidly on board on the Conservative side, where they have been given true power. This is why you folks wrecked the country. Whatever the "true conservative" philosophy might be, the actual results have been radicalism and disaster.

I had this discussion with my brother who votes on one issue: abortion. He kept saying "it's the philosophy, the philosophy is sound". Who the hell cares about the philosophy when the actual results put the country in the toilet. It's not "the philosophy", it's the actual reality, the actual results that count. And you can't get good results with lies, treachery, and mudslinging as the means. The ends do not justify the means, they do not even create the means in the case of the conservative movement.
John Moosie

climber
Beautiful California
Nov 11, 2008 - 12:52pm PT
" It's not "the philosophy"

In the sense that part of their philosophy is trickle down economics they do have a failed philosophy. They believe that if you keep the money in the hands of the wealthy, that they will create jobs. Yet the wealthy have never been wealthier then they are right now and where are the jobs. Trickle down theory does not work.
GOclimb

Trad climber
Boston, MA
Nov 11, 2008 - 12:55pm PT
I am a liberal, and yet I support Bluering's efforts 100%.

Why? Because I would *love* to see the Republican party fight for the values that are described in this thread as conservative.

Dirtineye said it best: "Real conservatives and real liberals actually have a lot in common. they both want to make our country better, they just differ on HOW.

The Rethuglican neo-cons were serious thugs who had a totally different agenda-- to plunder the country and the gov for themselves and their rich friends. "


It is not my fight to reform the Republican party. That fight belongs to Bluering and his compatriots. But I wish them well - the country will be far, far better off if they succeed.

By the way - that doesn't mean I'm off the hook! Back when I lived in MA, I called and wrote to my senator - Kennedy, and told him I'd never vote for him again if he voted NIMBY against the offshore wind farm. He backed down.

So kudos to you, Blue!

GO
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Nov 11, 2008 - 01:37pm PT
The NYT today has some analysis based on the election's strong regional patterns. The regional aspects seem to complement the good "rationalism" piece posted by Norton above.

The Republicans, meanwhile, have “become a Southernized party,” said Mr. Schaller, who teaches at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. “They have completely marginalized themselves to a mostly regional party,” he said, pointing out that nearly half of the current Republican House delegation is now Southern.

Merle Black, an expert on the region’s politics at Emory University in Atlanta, said the Republican Party went too far in appealing to the South, alienating voters elsewhere.

“They’ve maxed out on the South,” he said, which has “limited their appeal in the rest of the country.”


http://www.nytimes.com/
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Nov 11, 2008 - 02:13pm PT
They are having this discussion on NPS "Talk of the Nation" right now. Probably can hear it later on the NPR website

Peace

Karl
GOclimb

Trad climber
Boston, MA
Nov 11, 2008 - 04:05pm PT
Uh, MH - Chiloe just mentioned that two posts up.

GO
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Arid-zona
Nov 11, 2008 - 04:10pm PT
"They are having this discussion on NPS "Talk of the Nation" right now. Probably can hear it later on the NPR website "


Yeah I just heard most of it. It was probably the most sane Republican discussion I've heard in years. If they talked like that all the time they'd run unopposed most of the time. Even Rick Santorum came off well...and I mean he's the one who inspired http://www.santorum.com/ (NWS)
jstan

climber
Nov 15, 2008 - 08:18pm PT
The effort to divert our attention from the real problem yet chugs onward.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/11/15/america/Meltdown-Summit-Optional.php

Econ summit takes safe steps in response to crisis

The Associated Press
Saturday, November 15, 2008
WASHINGTON: In assessing the risky-to-reckless behavior that brought economies to the brink of disaster, world leaders were not about to take risks of their own.

They settled Saturday for a series of safe steps to blunt the crisis and prevent future ones, striking a balance between the bullish capitalism that they agreed brings dynamism to economies and the stiff regulation some of them wanted to combat destructive excesses.

There was only so much that a group as large and diverse as the nearly two dozen leaders could all agree on.

For the most part, they settled for watchdog solutions instead of overarching new rules. They agreed to work toward common accounting standards to make it harder for companies to cook the books in an era of global finance and patch-quilt regulation from one nation to the next.

Their meeting came with one key player unavoidably missing: the next U.S. president, who on Jan. 20 will inherit aftershocks of the housing crisis, clogged credit lines, tumultuous stock market and the first measured steps of prime ministers and presidents to do something about all of that together.

President-elect Barack Obama stayed in Chicago so as not to upstage President George W. Bush and sent representatives to meet on the sidelines with foreign leaders, as in the case of Mexico, or their aides, as with Canada.

"We must lay the foundation for reform to help ensure that a global crisis, such as this one, does not happen again," the leaders said after the emergency summit.
Perhaps as important as the modest concrete steps they took, the leaders of the planet's richest nations — and some of the fastest-developing — made clear their recognition of the world's increasingly interconnected financial networks and the responsibilities that go along with it.

"There shall be no blind spots," German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared. "There is here a great common will to ensure that such a crisis is not repeated."……………

End excerpt







http://www.newsweek.com/id/169173/output/print

A Way Out of the Wilderness
We've been walloped in consecutive elections, but we can't just dwell on the past. The future is already here.

Karl Rove
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Nov 24, 2008

Yes, we lost the election. But in a year when all currents were running against Republicans and our campaign was lackluster and erratic, Barack Obama received only 3.1 points more than Al Gore in 2000 and only 4.6 points more than John Kerry in 2004. The Democratic victory becomes durable only if Republicans make it so with the wrong moves.

Losing the election has led to a debate about whether the GOP should return to its Reaganite tradition or embark on a new reform course. This pundit-driven shoutfest presents a sterile, unnecessary choice. The party should embrace both tradition and reform; grass-roots Republicans want to apply timeless conservative principles to the new circumstances facing America.

In the coming year, we will be defined more by what we oppose than what we are for; the president-elect and the Democrats in Congress will control the agenda. We must pick fights carefully and center them around principle. The goal is to have the sharp differences that emerge make the GOP look like the more reasonable, hopeful and inviting party—which is easier said than done. A road map:……………………….

End second excerpt

http://bobmccarty.com/2008/11/11/georgia-runoff-election-key-to-stopping-obama/

Georgia Runoff Election Key to Stopping Obama
November 11th, 2008 · No Comments


In a letter to his fellow Americans, National Republican Trust PAC Executive Director Scott Wheeler warns about what will happen if Democrats defeat Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) in the runoff election set for Dec. 2:
0. If the Democrats defeat Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss, they will be very close to getting the 60 votes they need in the Senate to pass Obama’s radical legislation.
0. Without the 60 votes, Obama can’t pass legislation to increase income taxes, increase capital gains taxes, increase FICA taxes or any other taxes.
0. Without the 60 votes, Obama won’t be able to pass a new Fairness Doctrine limiting the power of talk radio.
0. Without the 60 votes, Obama won’t be able to pass new social spending programs estimated as costing as much as $1 trillion.
0. Without the 60 votes, Obama won’t be able to nationalize the healthcare system.
Without the 60 votes, Obama won’t be able to give 12 million illegal aliens citizenship and other government benefits.

End of third note

It would appear this republican official believes the republican party intends to filibuster the US government into inaction despite the need to deal with the crises left over from the Bush administration.
Mighty Hiker

Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Nov 16, 2008 - 12:31pm PT
There's another good editorial in the New York Times about this today. Essentially saying the Republicans are still in denial about what happened, and verging on a civil war in terms of what to do. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/opinion/16rich.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
jstan

climber
Nov 16, 2008 - 02:32pm PT
In this thread the problem Blue outlined was that of stating the fundamental principles behind which the party can reformulate itself. I will try to make the case Blue has the right idea, but the wrong process.

Unfortunately the Bush administration has cast into doubt the competence itself of the party. That being the case stating principles gains no traction. Who cares about my principles if I am so fatally flawed even were I to gain power I would only make bad things happen?

As the NYT pointed out, the party is still so stuck in the "southern strategy" as a process they can conceive of nothing else. The party will take the election data as it becomes available and expend megaWatts of electrical power in computers to build a case for "principles" they think can "win" them POWER once more. That they will take to their funding sources and try to make a sale.

The truth of it is, IMO, Blue had the right idea but the process wrong. The party will continue to have no impact as long as it continues its feverish attempts to gain POWER in the absence of an overall vision of where the country needs to go. That just telegraphs their continuing lack of competence. If they resort to filibusters in Congress the party will in fact destroy itself - finally. My post above suggests the party intends to do just that.

What is needed is for an eloquent person who can make clear the party's gaining power is no longer the issue. The only issue is how the party can contribute to the country's future well being. At least in the near term that will happen only as they work with the Democratic Party to achieve this. Indeed during this cooperative process the needed eloquent person and thinker should become visible.

This is what I had in mind when I said I thought Barack Obama would be the person who actually does save Lincoln's Party. As an admirer of that great gentle soul, I think this is the way it should happen.

The first step that has to be taken is for us all to take responsibility for the disasters we have created. That establishes integrity. Then we have to let go the anger we see everywhere around us and begin actually to listen. That establishes good will.

Without both integrity and goodwill the US itself will follow the republican party into total destruction.

IMO
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 17, 2008 - 02:43am PT
bluering,

After more reflection, and reading about 70 more comments on this thread, I would add a few other things to the list I posted at about Post 101.

First, I hope people differentiated between what I thought conservatives were (something I intentionally left vague), and specific things I think conservatives should be.

Next, I offer the following additional comments.

10. We need to encourage more conservatives to enter the intellectual strongholds of the left, namely entertainment, academia, and the media. While we have the Wall Street Journal and the University of Chicago (and the University of Chicago at Los Angeles) economics departments, we have too little else. I know I became a conservative through life experience, mostly trying to forecast economic activity. Maybe for that reason, I've relied too much on the natural Churchillian progression (. . . those who aren't liberal when they're young have no heart. Those who aren't conservative when they're old have no brains.)

BUT

11. We must be intellectually honest, and admit mistakes. While much of what Bush-haters attribute to him is myth or propaganda, I think their criticism of his inability to own up to mistakes rings true. We must not do that, if for no other reason than preserving our own truthfulness. This leads to:

12. As jstan and others have said, we need to shun an obsession with power. I personally don't care about the affiliation of those in power, I care about their policies, honesty and competence. This led me and several other Republicans here to vote against an incumbent Republican Congressman, because we felt he was lacking that honesty and competence. We were stuck with a liberal Democrat for a couple of terms, but this eventually allowed us to elect a competent and honest conservative -- and a much better representative.

13. We should shun demonization. As several pointed out, I was guilty of that in my Point 4 of my original post, in part. The less we try to demonize people, and the more we promote sound policy, the more likely we are to convince others of those policies' desirability.

14. Finally, we should remember that fair government requires compromise. We need to believe in our ideals (unless they prove wrong, in which case we repent and move on, the way we did with high tariffs and isolationism), but the virtual dysfunction in Sacramento and, to a lesser extent, D.C., comes from government officials more loyal to posturing and power than to governance. Despite comments to the contrary, we are and remain a big tent. We will never be a majority if we insist on poitical, economic or (most destructively) cultural "cleansing."

Thanks again for this thread.

John
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Nov 17, 2008 - 03:42am PT
It's a heartening sign that Obama is making a point to meet with McCain.

The left and right should help to keep each other find the expression of their philosophies that can best serve them. Then we win no matter who is in power.

Dragging half of the people down just means half the people won't be empowered to work together towards where we need to be.

peace

karl
dirtbag

climber
Nov 17, 2008 - 08:10am PT
From a politico.com's piece on the problem with the GOP:

"As for this year, Barbour argued there was a way to defeat Obama—by rendering him unacceptable to American voters. "

Folks like Haley Barbour is the reason they lost.

What do they have to offer?

Even if they could've succeeded in tearing Obama down, then what?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15676.html
jstan

climber
Nov 17, 2008 - 09:41am PT
In this, perhaps the most exciting period in American life since WWII, courage and trust in the goodwill of our fellows form the ground upon which we may hope to stand.

My props, Blue. You have rendered valuable service.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 20, 2008 - 04:00pm PT
I was gonna start a new thread, but this may be appropriate here. This is why the conservative movement must go back to it's principles.

http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArticle.asp?id=andersonb&date=081118

Our country is already marching in the direction of National Socialism, only with an honest and truly conservative movement can we slow and maybe stop the progression to destroying our parents' country.

(I know some of you actually think that's a good thing, that 'progressive' is good, but I think it is masking something else).
dirtbag

climber
Nov 20, 2008 - 04:04pm PT
What alarmist horsesh#t. I stopped reading after a line or two.

You guys deserved the electoral ass-whipping you got. You've got fear and bogeymen and little else. That fringe column is classic.
Jaybro

Social climber
wuz real!
Nov 20, 2008 - 04:07pm PT
On another thread there is talk of Copernicus DNA as well that of a Wooly mammoth. If they were combined would that make a Smart Republican genome?
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 20, 2008 - 04:11pm PT
Dirtbag, you can call the site 'fringe', but it's based on this guy's insights from Weimer Germany through the end of the war.

http://www.voncampe.com/home.html
dirtbag

climber
Nov 20, 2008 - 04:19pm PT
Bluering, this is straight up racist sh#t you linked to.

I'm calling you on this.

Frankly, I'm shocked you'd post such crap.

Of all the pro-apratheid apologist garbage I've seen, this is classic. From that column you cited:



"“But, woe to you if - or more likely, when - the rules change. White Americans may soon find themselves unable or unwilling to stand up to challenge the new political methods that will be the inevitable result of the ethnic metamorphosis now taking place in America. Unable to cope with the new rules of the game - violence, mob riots, intimidation through accusation of racism, demands of proportionality cased on racial numbers, and all the other social and political weapons used by the have-nots to bludgeon treasure and power from the haves - Americans, like others before them, will no doubt cave in. They will compromise away their independence and ultimately their way of life.


“That is exactly what happened to South Africa. I know because I was there and saw it happen.”


“Faced with revolution in the streets, strikes, civil unrest and the sheer terror and murder practiced by Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress (ANC), the white government simply capitulated in order to achieve ‘peace’”.


“Westerners need peace. They need order and stability. They are builders and planners. But what we got was the peace of the grave for our society.”


….“Those in the West who forced South Africa to surrender to the ANC and its leaders did not consider Africa to be the dangerous, corrupt, and savage place that is now in Zimbabwe and South Africa. Those Western politicians now have a similar problem looming on their own doorsteps: the demand for power and treasure from the non-western peoples inside the realm.


“It is already too late for South Africa, but not for America if enough people strengthen their spine and take on the race terrorists, the armies of ‘politically correct’ and, most dangerous of all, the craven politicians who believe ‘compassionate conservatism’ will buy them more votes, a few more days of peace.”


…..”We lost our country through skillful propaganda, pressure from abroad (not least from the USA), unrelenting charges of ‘oppression’ and ‘racism’ and the shrewd assessment by African tyrants that the white man has many Achilles heels, the most significant of which are his compassion, his belief in the ‘equality of man’ and his ‘love thy neighbor’ philosophy - none of which are part of the Third World’s history."




Yeah, "westerners" like "order." Like APARTHEID.


I guess black Africans don't crave order.

Do I need to even bother pointing out the other racist codewords?

I'm sure it's a coincidence this just happened to be posted as a man with African descent is about to become President. Read the skinhead propoganda and there is no difference.

Yes, I've been to South Africa. It has major problems with crime. But this is a real winner there, Bluering.

You deserve to lose, you and your xenophobic white people's party.

GOOD RIDDANCE.
apogee

climber
Nov 20, 2008 - 04:21pm PT
"You guys deserved the electoral ass-whipping you got."
"...would that make a Smart Republican genome?"

While I admit to a certain part of my psyche that revels in the collapse of the GOP and is in agreement with statements like these, the higher principled part of me knows that this kind of commentary is a non-starter in any kind of productive dialogue. Maybe dialogues like this thread are nothing more than idealistic wishful thinking that old beliefs can adjust and change, but I suppose that it is in small communities that great change begins. I, for one, will support it by refraining from my base instinct to rub anyone's nose in any failure that might befall them. (Unless someone puts Bushy, Cheney & Rove in stocks, and gives me a bunch of rotten eggs...then I can't be responsible for my actions.)
Mighty Hiker

Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Nov 20, 2008 - 04:23pm PT
I don't know about restoring conservatism, but we at least seem to have somewhat restored conversation around here.

Back on topic, it seems to me that if true conservatives want to have an honest debate about their future, they need to first agree to jettison the hate rhetoric and double speak for which Republicanism has become known. Perhaps it was imposed on them by their unholy (and uneasy) alliance with religious zealots and radicals. You can't have an intellectually honest discussion unless you agree on what terms mean, and those terms reasonably relate to the thing defined.
Dingus Milktoast

climber
Nov 20, 2008 - 04:25pm PT
Idealogues SUCK, regardless of party. Unfortunately for us, we boomers are a generation of idealogues.

Idealogues are folks who think THEIR ideals are more important than people.

They will gladly sacrifice YOU in support of THEIR ideals.

Rarely do idealogues sacrifice THEMSELVES for their causes though. Thinkers and talkers, do'ers not, idealogues.

The hard right and the hard left are mostly blow hard do nothings who think their ideas are more important than their neighbors and countrymen.

A pox on them all.

DMT
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 20, 2008 - 04:31pm PT
Let me add yet another thing we should be doing (well, in addition to ignoring dirtbag's name-calling trolls). We should be demanding value from every pulbic expenditure, not just those we don't like.

Too many nominal conservatives give spending on prisons, law enforcement, miltary, etc. too little scrutiny. Most people have their own opinions on military waste, so let me focus on my own pet peeve: prisons. In California, we spend massive amounts of money to feed, clothe, and guard people in ways that keep them allegedly harmless, but also quite useless to society. Most prisoners will return to the outside world. What has the money we've spent on warehousing them given us?

Not much, I submit. If we spent that kind of money per capita on schoolchildren, and got such poor results, we'd all be screaming about the waste of money. Why do we keep passing laws adding length to prison sentences when, as near as I can tell, no one has attempted to compare marginal costs and benefits? We should insist on such comparisons for everything the government does. We usually fight for that sort of analysis for regulation, say, but we need to be consistent and inisist on it for everything.

The cynical among us (I know, there aren't any!) might say that we don't do that because the military and prisons are very big business, employing a great many people. True, but does that mean we couldn't spend the money better elsewhere, including keeping it in our own pockets to use as we see fit? I know my own answer on the prison deal: nonviolent prisoners should be confined to their homes for certain hours, and required to work and pay taxes the rest of the time, within reason. It would both increase revenue and decrease expense. We may even get more productive members of society.

John
dirtbag

climber
Nov 20, 2008 - 04:32pm PT
"While I admit to a certain part of my psyche that revels in the collapse of the GOP and is in agreement with statements like these, the higher principled part of me knows that this kind of commentary is a non-starter in any kind of productive dialogue"

Apogee,

If Bluering was interested in dialog he wouldn't have revamped the thread by claiming we are on a path towards Naziism then using a racist article to support his view. That was the non-starter.

So don't blame me.

bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 20, 2008 - 04:50pm PT
Dirt, my intent was to point out that if someone who has lived through totalitarianism says that we could be on the same track, we should probably give them a listen.

You can choose to ignore it. I knew the SA lady would get you going. I don't know enough about the details of the SA gov't change to know whether she is completely racist or not.


dirtbag

climber
Nov 20, 2008 - 05:05pm PT
Jesus Bluering, wake-up, it's what the right wing in America has been doing for years. The conservatives play with and feed this stuff to the masses. Nixon did it, Wallace did it...even Reagan. Michael Savage makes his living from it.

And before them, it was the conservative Dems doing it.

What do you think the Southern Strategy is all about?

Liberal rule = racial disorder. They've spewed this garbage for years, though usually more coded then this clown.

You can bet that columinist knew exactly why she posted a pro-Apartheid racist along side the Nazi warning. She was saying, "See? With the liberals in charge, disorder will come like in the days before Hitler, except this time the niggers and the spics and everyone else will take over the white people, just like in South Africa. The white people are the ones who truly want order, which is what we gave up with Apartheid." That's the point of the column!

And again, it's no coincidence it is happening when a half-African man is about to become president.

It's a racist sh#t piece Bluering. The whole thing is the worst kind of vile garbage. Awful, hateful stuff.

And you are really wondering how to restore conservatism?

And if this what is left of conservatism, then pull the plug on this beast.
apogee

climber
Nov 20, 2008 - 05:09pm PT
I would agree that that article seems to employ the same old fear strategy that the GOP has used for way too long, and is largely responsible for where they are now. I don't see how an extremist position like that has any hope in re-creating conservatism as an effective political movement in the US.

Rather than bashing opposing political beliefs, I'd like to see more posts & articles on this thread about the changes that may be occurring within the GOP. The redesign of the Republican party is very much in the media right now (usually in between spots about Henry Paulson & the auto industry), and I wonder how much of a re-design will actually occur. Many seem to agree that when the GOP 'married' with the religious right & their social issues, their fate led them to where they are now. As much as many agree that many of these social views are not part of true conservatism, it is hard to imagine the GOP leaving the humongous voter potential that this group brings.

Besides this thread, what dialogues are you hearing in the media these days about re-creating conservatism & the Republican party? Do you genuinely believe there will be significant change? What parts of the GOP platform will be modified or dropped?
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 20, 2008 - 05:11pm PT
"And again, it's no coincidence it is happening when a half-African man is about to become president. "

I disagree with that. Most conservatives don't like Obama because he appears way too liberal, not because he's half-black. You've even fallen into the trap that any dissent about a 'minority' doing something you disagree with makes you a racist (or a homophobe or a sexist, depending on the issue).


bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 20, 2008 - 05:15pm PT
Look, I said I was going to start a different thread regarding 'totalitarianism' but when searching the existing threads for Socialism and what not, this one popped up.

Maybe I should have posted a new thread so DB could holler at me there instead of distracting from this thread's original intent.
dirtbag

climber
Nov 20, 2008 - 05:16pm PT
Actually, I've never equated conservative objections to Obama with racism. I'm not going to step into that box.

But that piece, by that author, is a softball. She even quoted someone who did not believe that non westerners (meaning, black Africans) appreciated order.

That's racist!

And guess what Obama is?




But is that the only thing you take issue with?
dirtbag

climber
Nov 20, 2008 - 05:18pm PT
"Maybe I should have posted a new thread so DB could holler at me there instead of distracting from this thread's original intent. "

No bluering, I think you've just shown what the problem with modern conservatism is.
stevep

Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
Nov 20, 2008 - 05:20pm PT
I'm sorry Bluering, but most of that article is racist fearmongering. An Obama administration has nothing in common with Robert Mugabe or Idi Amin.

In fact, seems to me there have been more rights infringements under Bush (a conservative white guy), then there are likely to be under an Obama administration.

But this is maybe directly responsive to the title of this thread. Do those of you who are fiscal and libertarian type conservatives really want to be associated with someone that could even consider this to be serious commentary?
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 20, 2008 - 07:51pm PT
Alright, I'm back. Everyone is complaining about the SA lady's quotes and it's very possible she's a racist, I'll admit that. No one really mentions the Hitler Youth guy and what he said.

One such witness, Hilmar von Campe, a former German Hitler Youth member, sounds the alarm. An article by WorldNetDaily dated November 13, 2008, quotes von Campe:


“Every day brings this nation closer to a Nazi-style totalitarian abyss,” writes Hilmar von Campe, now a U.S. citizen, and author of ‘Defeating the Totalitarian Lie: A Former Hitler Youth Warms America’".


….”I lived the Nazi nightmare, and, as the saying goes, ‘A man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument,’” writes von Campe. “Everything I write is based on my personal experience in Nazi Germany. There is nothing theoretical about my description of what happens when a nation throws God out of government and society, and Christians become religious bystanders.”


…..”It took me a long time to understand and define the nature of National Socialism”, says von Campe. “And, unfortunately, their philosophy continues to flourish under different labels remaining a menace to America and free human society.”


…..”Democratic procedures can be subverted and dishonest politicians are like sand in the gearbox, abundant, everywhere and destructive,” he writes. “What I see in America today is people painting their cabins while the ship goes down. Today in America we are witnessing a repeat performance of the tragedy of 1933 when an entire nation let itself be led like a lamb to the Socialist slaughterhouse. This time, the end of freedom is inevitable unless America rises to her mission and destiny.”



I don't know a lot about this dude but he makes some valid points that even liberals would agree with.

I'm trying to not sound paranoid but the more I look around, the more I can see our gov't and culture is rotting. It can't be healthy for a country.

If you look at countries/societies that turned totalitarian and compare their transformation to us today, I'd say we could easily take the step over the edge, pretty quickly actually.
jstan

climber
Nov 20, 2008 - 08:03pm PT
OK so let me throw caution to the winds and ask if the following is felt to be a principal of the conservatism toward which we wish to go.

The people who vote for any governmental benefit or service should also be the people who pay for it.

Now the problem with this is we don't actually get to vote. Our Congressional representatives do the voting.

So we amend it to: Any time our representatives vote for a benefit for us that we do not actually pay for ourselves, we individually will and must make it our business to make our representatives miserable and out of office to the maximum extent possible.

It all comes down to DILIGENCE.

bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 20, 2008 - 08:14pm PT
"The people who vote for any governmental benefit or service should also be the people who pay for it. "

Sounds wacky but maybe I misunderstand the statement. We, the taxpayers, pay for everything anyway to varying degrees based on our tax-rate.

People should be more diligent about understanding how to pay for stuff before they vote approving it. Too many people are just unaware and uninformed and vote with a knee-jerk response to bill titles.

jstan

climber
Nov 20, 2008 - 08:29pm PT
Blue:

No.
A lot of the things we benefit from are paid for by our grandchildren.

When we ask for something new we need to demand our taxes go up.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 20, 2008 - 08:45pm PT
I hear ya now, John. I agree, with a couple of exceptions.
John Moosie

climber
Beautiful California
Nov 20, 2008 - 08:53pm PT
From your article Blue,

"Today in America we are witnessing a repeat performance of the tragedy of 1933 when an entire nation let itself be led like a lamb to the Socialist slaughterhouse"

I thought the article was about totalitarianism, but he attacks socialism.

This guy is just doing a bunch of fear tricks with you Blue. You are afraid of socialism, and there are a few sound reasons to not have total socialism, but don't let this guy fool you. He obviously is totally biased because he can't see through the crap he writes about South Africa.

For example. In South Africa, once the Blacks regained some power, they held a forgiveness council. They didn't go around butchering people. They asked them to confess their crimes and for the most part they forgave them. No trials if you stood before the forgiveness council. The only people who were held for trials were those accused of the most brutal crimes such as murder and rape. And by the way, blacks and white went before the forgiveness council. Things are so much better in South Africa since the end of apartheid.

So the very fact that this person claims some superior knowledge about totalitarianism is totally debunked by the examples he uses.

Forget what he says about Germany. Its bunk. White people were in power and it was white people who wrecked Germany. It wasn't the fault of the Jews. Germany suffered from too much pride and it was led down the garden path into WW 1. When they lost WW1, Europe punished them by putting all sorts of sanctions against them. These sanctions created conditions, such as extreme poverty, that made it possible for someone such as Hitler to rise. The people were desperate and were looking for someone to lead them out of the mess they were in. Hitler promised them this and they believed because the wanted to believe.

There is some similarities to today in that America is somewhat desperate for change, but we are nowhere near the level of desperation that was going on in Germany, plus we are the ones who have created our desperation in our materialism and by allowing the power elite to control our money system. Since we control our fate, we can change it, which makes it different from Germany just before WW2.

This article is total bunk. He is just playing on your fear of socialism. No one here wants a total socialistic society. We might go a bit too far in that direction, but we will not go all the way because then you would have everyone united against the government. Repubs and dems would not stand for that.

One more thing about the sanctions put on Germany after WW1. We had the same situation with Japan after WW2. Thankfully McCarther understood the ramifications of putting onerous sanctions on Japan and demanded that we treat them decently. Otherwise they likely could have gone down a similar path that Germany did. Instead they are now are friend.


JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 20, 2008 - 09:00pm PT
jstan,

I like your concept. The devil will be in defining the "we" who benefit and the "us" whose taxes increase. That has both practical and ethical difficulties.

As an example of an ethical difficulty, I'm within five years of Social Security eligibility. I've paid into the system (between employer's and employee's "contributions") enough that, at a 5% internal rate of return, should have yielded a value of over one million dollars in five years. All of those payments went to pay current Social Security benefits. Is it wrong for me to expect future workers to pay me when my turn comes?

I don't think the answer is all that easy, because I get an unfair result no matter how I answer. If I get the full benefits of current recipients, either the system goes broke or my children's generation will be pauperized paying for it. If I get benefits with less than a present value of one million dollars (of course I won't), I've been cheated. What do we do?

I suggest we begin by looking warily at any entitlement program for some, but not all Americans. The cost to the have-nots increases too fast.

I also have problems figuring out what constitutes an increase to "our" taxes. In California, the income tax affects very few taxpayers to any significant degree. I think any effective raising of "our" taxes must include raising them in a way that affects most of the population. Otherwise, we have such a disconnect between the payors and the payees that we have a sort of slavery by democracy. Who wouldn't want something they don't pay for? Who protects the minority of payors, other than the ability to vote with their feet? Conservatives seem the only ones likely to do so.

I think you've made an excellent contribution. I need to go to a rehearsal right now, so I may add more later, but I think you're on to something.

John
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 20, 2008 - 09:16pm PT
"I thought the article was about totalitarianism, but he attacks socialism."

Moosie, he's talking about what was billed as Nationalized Socialism (the NAZI party). At the time everyone loved the idea of nationalized socialism, sounded great! Then Hitler kept taking more and more power through social programs and starting justifying taking over countries and expanding the Fatherland.

John Moosie

climber
Beautiful California
Nov 20, 2008 - 09:36pm PT
". If I get benefits with less than a present value of one million dollars (of course I won't), I've been cheated. "

Only if you view SS as a retirement account. It is, but it also acts as an insurance account. We are all trying to insure that no on goes hungry when they retire. Something which I think is noble. Since it is also an insurance account, then you can not expect to get your full money out just as you do not expect to get your full money out from your medical insurance, even if you do not use it in your lifetime.

The main problem with Social Security is we robbed it. It was designed to be fully funded, but we used the funds to finance other things, instead of holding or investing them. Now it is under funded.

Mighty Hiker

Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Nov 20, 2008 - 09:51pm PT
Many historians, political scientists and sociologists might, if asked, say that there are many parallels between the European fascist regimes of 1922 - 45, and the US federal government over the last eight years. (Many non-parallels, too.) Authoritarian corporatism. Suppression of individual rights. Aggressive foreign policy, based on exaggerated or imagined threats. Growing state control. Emphasis on supposed "volk" values.

The biggest parallel of all being the double speak rhetoric. Until that is addressed, it may not be possible to have an intelligent discussion about the future of conservatism in the US. For example, the US has been a mixed economy and society since at least World War I, or in political terms a liberal democracy. (John L?) That is to say, one in which government spending at all levels account for 30 - 40% of national spending. A bit more in time of crisis, a bit less during booms. One in which government is recognized as having a significant role in many aspects of society, and a moderating influence on extreme forces.

Apart from ditching the ugly rhetoric, the extremists, the single-issue kooks, and the religious nuts, the conservatives have to ask themselves "What is the proper role of government in our country, and how should it be accomplished?"
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Nov 20, 2008 - 10:10pm PT
"True, but does that mean we couldn't spend the money better elsewhere, including keeping it in our own pockets to use as we see fit? I know my own answer on the prison deal: nonviolent prisoners should be confined to their homes for certain hours, and required to work and pay taxes the rest of the time, within reason. It would both increase revenue and decrease expense. We may even get more productive members of society. "

A fine Idea John and it's a good point. If conservatism was equally zealous about efficiency and rectitude in programs of spending that they like, I could respect it with pride. The fact that Haliburton and Bechtel got these no bid contracts that they performed so poorly on and fraudulently profiteer on irritates me.

Peace

Karl
Mighty Hiker

Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Nov 20, 2008 - 10:22pm PT
Perhaps what is needed is for the Republicans, at least the honest ones, to admit that Republican is not necessarily synonymous with conservative. Second, that they were badly defeated, and need to change. "More of the same" isn't going to do it - that's been rejected. Third, that some elements of their coalition will either have to compromise or be ejected. Fourth, honesty with themselves, and with the electorate. Enough of the mindless rhetoric. Last, a willingness to seek solutions and compromise, to unite instead of dividing.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 20, 2008 - 10:34pm PT
"If conservatism was equally zealous about efficiency and rectitude in programs of spending that they like, I could respect it with pride."

That hits the nail on the head for the future conservatives. Fiscal responsibility is something that almost everybody agrees upon.

Social issues should take a back-seat to all the real issues. In fact, the Federal gov't should stay away from social issues with some exeptions of course.
John Moosie

climber
Beautiful California
Nov 20, 2008 - 10:37pm PT
Blue, What do you mean "real" issue versus a "social" issue? Please define this.

Jaybro

Social climber
wuz real!
Nov 20, 2008 - 11:13pm PT
What the Moose said.

JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 21, 2008 - 01:05am PT
John Moosie,

I know that Social Security is not a retirement plan. My point was that either I impoverish my children's generation, or I get treated worse than those Social Security recipients who I've spent the last 40 years supporting. I'd given it as an example of a difficulty in applying John S's (quite useful, in my opinion) suggestion earlier in this thread.

I know my personal choice -- I'd rather work longer and recieve benefits later (in effect, receiving less), but that only works fairly if we all do that. I don't know that there's any consensus on this. I know that AARP will resist any attempt to change benefits (which is why I won't join, even though they have some good deals on real insurance).

I'd given my criticism of social security on another thread, so forgive me if I repeat myself. Social security is a very odd form of entitlement. It is not really insurance, since it pays to some who never paid in. It's not really welfare, because the entitlement is a function of what you paid in, not on your need. It is not really retirement, for the reasons you've pointed out.

And it's not really fair. Certain favored groups (educators, government workers, etc.) pay into a true retirement system and pay no FICA. Why aren't they helping to support those who never paid into social security, the way I am? I've been fortuante enough to earn more than the FICA cap much of my working life, so I've paid a smaller percentage of my income into the system than have those who earned less than me. If this is a wealth transfer, why the regressive rate?

As a conservative, I'd say that's what you get when you let the government and political system design it.

John
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 21, 2008 - 01:40am PT
I think conservatives and the internet left (as represented on ST) also differ on the components of freedom. I found very little restraint on freedom from this administration compared to certain previous ones, and the United States much freer now than 40 years ago. There was certainly no suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, nor was there anything like the extraordinary powers given President Wilson in WWI.

I felt the greatest deprivation of freedom during the 1970's. The government limited my mobility by telling me how fast I could drive, when I could buy gasoline, and what sort of vehicle I should take (those who remember the cars of the 1970's know they were some of the worst vehicles ever made.) The government limited my finances by telling me how much I could pay for certain commodities, how much my employer could pay me, and how much of the money I earned I could spend as I saw fit, and how much they would spend for me (which was a lot). They even told males over 18 for whom to work (i.e. the Army).

To add insult to injury, the government began discriminating against people of my gender and ethnicity during the 1970's. That was a particularly a delicious irony because of the discrimination my ethnic group faced a few decades before here in Fresno. If you look at the old deeds in what were then the most fashionable areas, you will find all kinds of restrictive covenants prohibiting sale or rental to us!

The government still tells me where I can live, work or play, through zoning and land use controls. It tells people what they must study in school, what medications I can take, and who can decide that for me, and a host of other minute and significant details of how we live our lives.

Also ironic, though, is that much of the economic restriction came under Nixon, not just under Carter. The wage and price controls enacted in the early seventies were bipartisan. The 55-mile national limit was enacted by a Democratic congress, with the support of a Republican president.

Of course, not all of this is bad. I do not want to go back to America before child labor laws, mandatory education, free to the public through high school, unregulated consumer labels, etc., etc. I do think, however, that every one of these restrictions of our freedom, however well-intentioned, comes at a cost. I would like to see conservatives making principled, disciplined and honest evaluations of the marginal costs and benefits of every change in freedom. Actually, I'd like to see liberals do that, too, but they're so biased toward government intervention that they lack the motivation.

Of course, in real life, we see conservatives, libertarians, socialists, liberals, and anyone else with a predisposition to proposed government actions emphasizing the costs, but not the benefits of actions they don't like, and doing the opposite for actions they like. That's why we see so many arguments here that are, essentially "Government intervention is imperfect, so it should stop," or "The market gives us imperfect outcomes, so the government should intervene." If we conservatives bring about objective, sober evaluations of marginal costs and benefits of government actions, we will do much to become relevant -- really essential -- to politics and governance. Best of all, we'll end up with a better world.

John
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 21, 2008 - 01:42am PT
LEB,

That's what I'm doing. Again, I originally used social security as an illustration of the difficulties we face in making intergenerational payment decisions.

John
John Moosie

climber
Beautiful California
Nov 21, 2008 - 01:55am PT
Interesting post John. I will have to give it some more consideration.

We do still control the speed limit. It just happens to currently be a speed that more people like.

"Actually, I'd like to see liberals do that, too, but they're so biased toward government intervention that they lack the motivation"

I would have said that it was the conservatives who have fought against any government intervention. Smaller government has been their chant for years now.

Hopefully we will one day see that government is important, but that we need to be vigilant watchdogs to keep it from going crazy. Plus we need to spend more effort educating people instead of mouthing blind rhetoric. I'm tired of hearing about smaller government or less taxes as our schools fall apart, our hospitals are overwhelmed and thus we fall behind other first world countries in education and healthcare, though we are supposedly the greatest country on the Earth.

I think that we spent too many years putting off paying for things, and we fooled ourselves about the cost of war.

I also think that one day we will see that our money system is corrupt. Basing money on debt is a fools game and robs you of your future. I hope that the conservatives will lead in this.


apogee

climber
Nov 21, 2008 - 03:08am PT
It seems to me that, in really simplified (over-simplified?) terms, some of the core values of republicans/conservatives tend to be independence, sovereignty, and freedom from the intervention of government (or anybody else) constraining what they would like to do.

Liberals, by and large, embrace the fact that there are a lot of people around, and that efforts made to support the greater good will ultimately reap benefits for all. Governmental intervention is seen as a means to this end.

When you look at the political map, it tends to bear this out: liberals/Dems gravitate towards cities; conservatives/repubs gravitate towards less populated areas where they can direct their own destinies (i.e. ID, MT, AK).

Both views have obvious merit and ring true for any person- sometimes it strikes me as curious that there is such division amongst people when we want similar things. At this point in history, as the US & the earth's population swells enormously, the ideals of being truly self-governing seem out of touch. Like it or not, this country is going to get a whole lot more crowded very soon, and the luxury of making decisions that only benefit yourself is sure to be fading.

The core ideals of conservatism worked best when the country was still largely unexplored, and the way it became explored was through the initiative and independent drive of individuals. This time has passed, and now that our physical borders are well-explored and understood, conservatives are left grasping for elements in their lives where they can still exert a similar level of control.
jstan

climber
Nov 21, 2008 - 11:19am PT
Conservatism I: When we ask for something new from the government we need to insist our taxes go up.

Conservatism II: Government never plans when it will pay off its debt. Taxes should rise sufficiently to pay off incurred debt within a period certain.

Conservatism III: Repeal child labor law.
We are training children to be indigents.

Conservatism IV: Executive orders must not take precedence over acts of Congress. We have seen what the "unitary executive" can become. Follow the Constitution a-ready!

With the implementation of the above getting anything out of the government will become more difficult than solving a problem another way. So we will stop automatically going to the Federal Government for everything.

None of the above requires a Constitutional amendment. Americans no longer understand the idea of the "common good" so amendments are supremely destructive.

After the approaching economic debacle has reached its final stages the idea of the common good will, however, be understood once more.

IMO
dirtbag

climber
Nov 21, 2008 - 12:13pm PT
These guys aren't conservative, they're backwards, and for far too long they've been calling the shots in the GOP.

Evolution bashing curriculum:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/community/groups/index.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3aa70e3396-6663-4a8d-ba19-e44939d3c44fForum%3a7cceb09e-a8ae-44b4-b7af-92605cbce240Discussion%3a3ac39f3a-18a4-4592-a782-4c27c8ec49af



South Carolina, a theocracy:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/11/signs_wonders_sc_for_jc.html


Conservative Kathleen Parker's take:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111802886.html
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 21, 2008 - 12:25pm PT
jstan,

At first I thought you were simply making a modest proposal regarding child labor laws, but re-reading your post makes me think otherwise. What laws prevent minors (as opposed to really young children) from working? High minimum wages, certainly, but I don't know about much else.

School schedules certainly interfere with the sorts of part-time work my generation used to do. I made enough money to buy a rope, twenty 'biners, shoes, pitons, a Yosemite hammer and acessories just harvesting crops a few weeks before school started in the mid-1960's. Now school starts three weeks earlier, so that's out.

Of course, most of today's college-prep students spend so much time trying to assemble their records for college that between studying and "volunteering" they have little time to earn money. I get sad watching them go through what, for most, ends up an exercise in dilettantism, but that's a rant for a different thread.

Again, an interesting post. I'd like to hear more.

John
jstan

climber
Nov 21, 2008 - 01:25pm PT
JE
Sorry about being so vague on child labor, but you know being vague is sometimes best for getting thought processes going. The surest way to kill interest is to write a 1000 page tome.

I see a lot of our problems as arising from the way we train children as their neural connections are being made. It needs to start when they are five or six. Learning is deep and rapid at that age.

We have what can only be called a cultural bias against children having to work.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 21, 2008 - 01:54pm PT
Amen!

John
jstan

climber
Nov 26, 2008 - 08:29pm PT
Obama says daughters will do chores in White House

By SARA KUGLER – 59 minutes ago
CHICAGO (AP) — President-elect Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, said their young daughters will still have to do chores in the White House and won't get out of doing homework just because they're the president's children. In an interview with Barbara Walters, the Obamas said Sasha, 7, and Malia, 10, will have lives as normal as possible. That means helping out around the house.

"That was the first thing I said to some of the staff when I did my visit," Michelle Obama said. "I said, 'You know, we're going to have to set up some boundaries,' because they're going to need to be able to make their beds, and clean up."

The girls, who will be attending the prestigious Sidwell Friends School, also will be expected to do their homework as usual. Although, the president-elect said, Malia has her eye on a special spot to write important papers.

When she came back from her White House visit recently, she told her dad that she plans to work at the desk in the Lincoln bedroom.

Obama said his daughter told him "I'm going to sit at that desk, because I'm thinking that will inspire big thoughts."

The president-elect also said he wants to make the White House "green."

Obama, who will be sworn in Jan. 20, plans to sit down with the chief usher for the presidential mansion and do an evaluation of its energy efficiency.

"Part of what I want to do is to show the American people that it's not that hard," Obama said.

Asked whether he'll be tiptoeing around at night, turning off the lights, Obama said he isn't going to be obsessive about it.

"But I do that in my current house," he added, "and there's no reason why I wouldn't do it in my next one."

The full interview airs Wednesday at 10 p.m. EST.
Mighty Hiker

Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Nov 26, 2008 - 08:32pm PT
You're not suggesting that the Obama family has conservative values, are you? :-)
graniteclimber

Trad climber
Nowhere
Jan 24, 2009 - 11:49pm PT
This is from someone who was one of the founders of the Heritage Foundation and a friend and associate of Ronald Reagan.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-edwards24-2009jan24,0,3344794.story

On the premise that simple is best, many Republicans have reduced their operating philosophy to two essentials: First, government is bad (it's "the problem"); second, big government is the worst and small government is better (although because government itself is bad, it may be assumed that small government is only marginally preferable). This is all errant nonsense. It is wrong in every conceivable way and violative of the Constitution, American exceptionalism, freedom, conservatism, Reaganism and common sense.



The Republican Party that is in such disrepute today is not the party of Reagan. It is the party of Rush Limbaugh, of Ann Coulter, of Newt Gingrich, of George W. Bush, of Karl Rove. It is not a conservative party, it is a party built on the blind and narrow pursuit of power.

Not too long ago, conservatives were thought of as the locus of creative thought. Conservative think tanks (full disclosure: I was one of the three founding trustees of the Heritage Foundation) were thought of as cutting-edge, offering conservative solutions to national problems. By the 2008 elections, the very idea of ideas had been rejected. One who listened to Barry Goldwater's speeches in the mid-'60s, or to Reagan's in the '80s, might have been struck by their philosophical tone, their proposed (even if hotly contested) reformulation of the proper relationship between state and citizen. Last year's presidential campaign, on the other hand, saw the emergence of a Republican Party that was anti-intellectual, nativist, populist (in populism's worst sense) and prepared to send Joe the Plumber to Washington to manage the nation's public affairs.

American conservatism has always had the problem of being misnamed. It is, at root, the political twin to classical European liberalism, a freedoms-based belief in limiting the power of government to intrude on the liberties of the people. It is the opposite of European conservatism (which Winston Churchill referred to as reverence for king and church); it is rather the heir to John Locke and James Madison, and a belief that the people should be the masters of their government, not the reverse (a concept largely turned on its head by the George W. Bush presidency).

Over the last several years, conservatives have turned themselves inside out: They have come to worship small government and have turned their backs on limited government. They have turned to a politics of exclusion, division and nastiness. Today, they wonder what went wrong, why Americans have turned on them, why they lose, or barely win, even in places such as Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina.
nita

climber
chica from chico, I don't claim to be a daisy
Jan 24, 2009 - 11:57pm PT
Graniteclimber , back on page 2 of this thread, I put up a interview with Mikey Edwards. I doubt Bluey listened to it.
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=4&islist=true&id=13&d=11-05-2008
Both interviews are a very GOOD listen.
Mikey's is the second interview..just scroll down and click.
Mighty Hiker

Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jan 24, 2009 - 11:59pm PT
It seems disingenuous of the writer to be hearkening back to Nixon and (especially) Reagan, while trying to disown Bush II. The philosophical thread from Goldwater through Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II is pretty consistent. Bush II may have been the reductio ad absurdum of it, almost a parody of their beliefs and propaganda, but there's little about his tactics and strategies that would have been strange to Reagan or Goldwater. They probably would not have been too enthusiastic about an overtly religious, "family values" aspect to their party, but otherwise the nativist, corporatist, often racist roots of the Republican party go far back.

There hasn't been a truly moderate, competent conservative national government in the U.S. since Eisenhower or perhaps Teddy Roosevelt.
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Jan 25, 2009 - 12:58am PT
Bluering, if you are serious, here is a place to start:

Heroic Conservatism: Why Republicans Need to Embrace America's Ideals (And Why They Deserve to Fail If They Don't) (Hardcover)
by Michael J. Gerson (Author)

"For anyone interested in politics--this book is a must-read." -- William Kristol, Editor, The Weekly Standard

"Gerson has been hailed as the finest presidential speechwriter in fifty years and this book shows why." -- Michael Cromartie, Vice President, Ethics and Public Policy Center

"One of the brightest thinkers in America gives us a compelling conservative manifesto..." -- Chuck Colson, Founder, Prison Fellowship

"After five eventful years in the West Wing, I am convinced that the bold use of government to serve human rights and dignity is not only a good thing, but a necessary thing. I believe the security of our country depends on idealism abroad -- the promotion of liberty and hope as the alternatives to hatred and bitterness. I believe the unity of our country depends on idealism at home -- a determination to care for the weak and vulnerable. . . ."

On his initial trip to Austin, Gerson jotted down his goals, including helping the GOP articulate a message of social justice. In their first meeting, in April 1999, Bush's best and worst qualities -- his infectious optimism as well as his maddening cockiness -- were on display: This isn't a job interview, he told Gerson. I want you to write my announcement speech, my acceptance speech at the Republican convention and my inaugural address.

The shy, 35-year-old wordsmith was so nervous before the meeting that Bush's security detail feared he was having heart failure. Gerson did suffer a heart attack six years later; by then he was chief White House speechwriter and had overseen the drafting of all the speeches Bush mentioned, and many more. While recovering, he worked on Bush's second inaugural.

Gerson was also a senior policy adviser to the president. After leaving the White House in mid-2006, he joined the Council on Foreign Relations and became a columnist for The Washington Post.
Mighty Hiker

Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jan 26, 2009 - 01:03am PT
There are some good recent editorials in the New York Times yesterday and today, on liberalism and its future in the U.S. And therefore, of course, on conservatism and its future.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/opinion/25gartonash-1.html?_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/opinion/26kristol.html?_r=1

As Obama appears to be a pragmatic liberal, something to think about. And your constitution, particularly the bill of rights, emphasizes freedoms that are usually considered to embody liberal democratic values.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Jan 26, 2009 - 04:54am PT
Good reads, MH. While I agree particularly with the first article on the corruption of the meaning of "liberal," I disagree with its timing. For those of us who remember the 1964 election, "liberal" had largely the same meaning in the popular press that it does now.

Still, as a "conservative liberal" in the sense of the first article, it's refreshing to see the term "liberal" used in its appropriate, non-pejorative sense.

I also like granite climber's quote: "American conservatism has always had the problem of being misnamed. It is, at root, the political twin to classical European liberalism, a freedoms-based belief in limiting the power of government to intrude on the liberties of the people. It is the opposite of European conservatism (which Winston Churchill referred to as reverence for king and church); it is rather the heir to John Locke and James Madison, and a belief that the people should be the masters of their government, not the reverse (a concept largely turned on its head by the George W. Bush presidency)."

While I find the last parenthetical an exageration for most of Bush II's presidency, I can't say the same for the last Republican congress. Most of the policies enacted then were "Let's spend the taxpayers' dollars to buy votes. Let's solve the crime problem by making it illegaler. Let's promote life by telling people they can't decide to stop artificiallly keeping soemone alive," sorts of solutions. In other words, the sorts of governmental intrusion that people who love freedom should resist.

Maybe our real problem really is the nomenclature we've tolerated. After all, how did we let people who want to return to the sorts of intrusive governmental actions and limitations on private activity prevalent in ancient times be called "progressive?"

John
apogee

climber
Feb 6, 2009 - 01:54am PT
During the campaign, the D's had a very qualified, and progressive female candidate. How did the R's respond?

(OK, maybe that's not exactly how they responded...)

Then, as the race progressed, a highly qualified black man became the candidate. How did the R's respond?

http://www.gop.com/BLOG/Read.aspx?GUID=3d349db6-fa18-485b-815c-07e22de29fd2

Can't you guys ever come up with an original idea?
just passing thru

climber
Feb 10, 2009 - 07:15pm PT
This will help to define the direction of the “new” conservative movement for those of you liberals that are clueless as to what conservatism really is:

Wahington post sez:

Republican PAC targets bill supporters

“A conservative political action committee Tuesday vowed to pour money into primary challenges against any Republican who votes for President Obama's economic rescue package”

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/10/conservatives-ready-to-challenge-stimulus-supporte/
Fat Dad

Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
Feb 10, 2009 - 07:26pm PT
JPT,
Was your intent to shoot any credibility you might muster in the foot?
If "conservatism" is simply punishing those who might be centrist, then you merely confirmed what the left has known all along: they're just a bunch of zealots.
just passing thru

climber
Feb 10, 2009 - 07:33pm PT
Fat Dad:

How do you feel about Lieberman supporting McCain in 08?


Would you support Lieberman's re-election bid?



bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 10, 2009 - 07:48pm PT
Arlen Specter has always been a RINO. Snow, yeah, RINO. Collins surprised me. Didn't she say she'd not vote for it if it went over 800 billion?
apogee

climber
Mar 26, 2009 - 11:36pm PT
bump to allow the 'Is it too early to..' thread die, and to give those repugs who don't wanna play the Droid thread a place to go.
apogee

climber
Nov 14, 2009 - 09:34pm PT
Uh-huh. Yep.

Just put that little piece of evidence on the very large pile that has already accumulated.
Jingy

Social climber
Flatland, Ca
Nov 14, 2009 - 10:05pm PT
restoring Conservatism (ot) - I'm afraid the prognosis is grim...

gonna have to amputate....

or move the whole lot of'em to an island!
Jingy

Social climber
Flatland, Ca
Nov 14, 2009 - 10:22pm PT
or, wait.. maybe we can give the republican leadership about 3 meters of a good quality rope...


(but will they know what to do with it?)


(I'm pretty sure the rope would be brought up on charges and rendered out of the country for more of the completely legal (at least for the bush-bots) water boarding)
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 5, 2012 - 03:48pm PT
Haha!

bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.

Topic Author's Original Post - Nov 5, 2008 - 06:39pm PT
"Well, my fellow conservatives, we've just been handed a mandate for 'change'. It's begging for more of a return to classic conservative principles. Financial responsibility, smaller gov't, strong military, and a focus on U.S. national needs (less of a global interventionist).

The last one is debatable for me, the others are musts."


I won't say "I told ya so", but look where we are now...Keep going this direction, or try some conservative policy?
TFPU

Sport climber
Idaho
Oct 5, 2012 - 03:57pm PT
Thank god supertopo has such a political sage as yourself.
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Oct 5, 2012 - 04:00pm PT
"Financial responsibility, smaller gov't, strong military, and a focus on U.S. national needs (less of a global interventionist)."

And yer thinkin' Rmoney somehow represents these traits?

Man, you sure are gullible.
darkmagus

Mountain climber
San Diego, CA
Oct 5, 2012 - 04:02pm PT
In Plato's "allegory of the cave", the prisoners mistake the shadows on the wall for reality. They're never exposed to "real things", only shadows, so they don't really understand what the 'real world' is like, but they think they do, because it's all they've ever known.

bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 5, 2012 - 04:06pm PT
And yer thinkin' Rmoney somehow represents these traits?

It would be a change in the "right" direction. Especially if we get a more responsible Congress that can reduce spending, pass sound budgets, and work on reducing the deficit instead of growing it.

And jobs figures suck. We need to focus on changing that too. Long-term.
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Oct 5, 2012 - 04:09pm PT
7.8%, bay-bee...slidin' under the wire just in time for the election....

Rmoney's 'October Surprise'!

Edit:
"a more responsible Congress that can reduce spending, pass sound budgets, and work on reducing the deficit instead of growing it."

Please refer to my earlier 'gullibility' comment.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 5, 2012 - 04:15pm PT
7.8%, bay-bee...slidin' under the wire just in time for the election....

Timing is unusually convenient, isn't it? Gullibility? Yes, most Obama-bots will buy that.

"Look, see, it is getting better!"

We are headed for bad times, bro. We really need to change direction to stop the bleeding.
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Oct 5, 2012 - 04:17pm PT
Damn right. Keeping the Republicans out of power is the first step towards a better future.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 5, 2012 - 04:22pm PT
Yeah, you're right. That's worked real well....
TFPU

Sport climber
Idaho
Oct 5, 2012 - 04:22pm PT
Blue I would like to hear how you suggest we fix thinkgs. Let's assume you get your wish and congress is all conservitives and so is the white house. what are some good policies to follow to ensure we go in a different direction and stop the bleeding?
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Oct 5, 2012 - 04:28pm PT
No doubt we can agree it sure didn't work real well between 2000-2008!
gf

climber
Oct 5, 2012 - 04:34pm PT
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revolt-of-the-rich/
um bluey read this and then maybe think twice about whos' the tail and whos' the dog.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 5, 2012 - 04:34pm PT
Blue I would like to hear how you suggest we fix thinkgs. Let's assume you get your wish and congress is all conservitives and so is the white house. what are some good policies to follow to ensure we go in a different direction and stop the bleeding?


1. Keep the Bush tax-rates for all, or reduce them up to 20% max across the board, for all taxpayers.

2. Cut the corporate tax-rate to 20% initially, maybe less later.

3. Develop our energy (oil) production. Green-flag Keystone. Drill in the gulf. Encourage Congress to drill in ANWR, Alaska. Maybe the coasts. Give a good look into fracking.

4. CONTROL SPENDING. Start cutting stupid Federal expenditures, including some military waste. Yes, de-fund PBS, as they are an example of sh#t the Fed has no constitutional mandate to fund. The Dept of Energy is failing as defined in their mission statement. Kill it! There are others.

5. Start trading with Mexico/South America and Canada, and bring sh#t home from Asia. Why ship stuff by boat from there when we are being flooded by illegals looking for work here. Give SA more work.

6. Give Federal breaks to Small Business Loans.

7. Reign in illegal immigration. See #5.

8. Bring back the welfare-for-work program. It shouldn't take most people 2 years to get back into a life-sustaining workforce. Welfare is a safety-net, not a f*#king career!

EDIT: Apogee, Bush is a fiscal conservative compared to Obama. And Bush was no fiscal conservative....

EDIT: GF, can you sum up your thoughts? I don't read everything people throw at me. What's yer point?
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
USA Moundhouse Nev. and land o da SLEDS!
Oct 5, 2012 - 04:38pm PT
could you imagine how good we could get things again if we SAVED all those trillions going to the ME?
gf

climber
Oct 5, 2012 - 04:38pm PT
Bluey a lot of this is common sense but the tax rate thing is a crock -read that article written in a truely conservative mag and i'd be shocked if you didn't agree

g
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Oct 5, 2012 - 04:41pm PT
Give SA more work


Uh, they're busy...
Credit: Reilly

philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 5, 2012 - 04:42pm PT
Yes Ron isn't a shame that Obama started those two illegal wars over there? And Ron are you including Israel in the no more money to the ME?
The best way to restore true and sensible conservatism is to throw all the Christian neo-fundies and TeaBaggers out of the GOP. Let saner heads prevail.
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Oct 5, 2012 - 04:43pm PT
blue & Ron, you are both going to vote for a Party whose candidate's campaign is based almost entirely upon the expectation that voters will completely forget the debacle they created that sent us into a historic shithole. One can argue about the economic effectiveness of the Obama administration, but the idea that the majority of voters would put the same Party who drove us into a ditch back into power is a reflection of the campaign's audacity, the ignorance of the electorate, and no doubt a whole lot of both.

Edit: There has been no progress whatsoever by the GOP in achieving any of the higher goals of your OP.
Captain...or Skully

climber
Oct 5, 2012 - 04:46pm PT
What exactly is it the "conservatives" are conserving, anyway?
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
USA Moundhouse Nev. and land o da SLEDS!
Oct 5, 2012 - 04:48pm PT
apogee, never mind the fact that obama kept MUCH of bushs policies in place and never mind the fact he is now doing what bush did to Irag via Iran while ignoring obvious problems elsewhere. And never mind him lying as much as romney did in the debates. Right? Time for the next liar- the only real choice. Sad but true. obama has muslim in his heritage and has sided many times with them in helping to create the boiling atmosphere of the ME as much as any president before him has done. He has dug us deeper in that SHYT then claims to be winding down the "war in afghanistan" really? how does one "wind down" a "war"?? I guess in that tune,, we "wound down" Korea, and Nam...

philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 5, 2012 - 04:50pm PT
Truly sad!
There fixed it 4U.
TFPU

Sport climber
Idaho
Oct 5, 2012 - 04:58pm PT
Blue no one wants to pay more taxes. certainly not me but there's no way we can fix the debt and keep cutting taxes and reduce governemnt spending all at the same time. correct me if I'm wrong. I wouldn't mind paying a higher tax if the services rendered were better than what we get now.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 5, 2012 - 04:58pm PT
What exactly is it the "conservatives" are conserving, anyway?

Tax-payer dollars.
gf

climber
Oct 5, 2012 - 05:35pm PT
well in a lot of ways a TRUE conservative is an honourable calling -conserve the environment, conserve our financial health by ensuring fairness to all with favours to none. That said I'm not advocating corporate or individual tax welfare-which means the top 5% need to suck it in and START LIVING OUT THEIR SELF-PROFESSED CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES BY PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE

bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 5, 2012 - 05:43pm PT
Blue no one wants to pay more taxes. certainly not me but there's no way we can fix the debt and keep cutting taxes and reduce governemnt spending all at the same time. correct me if I'm wrong. I wouldn't mind paying a higher tax if the services rendered were better than what we get now.


Sorry, the ST server choked or I would have responded sooner.

But gov't is only well served to run the military, only because they have strict hierarchy and rules subject to direct authorial justice.

This problem can be fixed by lower Fed spending with increased income for ppl to spend cash into the economy.

It has to be tempered with small-biz breaks to hire ppl.

In other words, get the people of the take, get them working.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Oct 5, 2012 - 05:44pm PT
That said I'm not advocating corporate or individual tax welfare

What do you consider corporate or individual tax welfare to be? The earned income credit? Favored tax treatment for solar engery? Investment tax credits? Anything specific?

John
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 5, 2012 - 05:46pm PT
well in a lot of ways a TRUE conservative is an honourable calling -conserve the environment, conserve our financial health by ensuring fairness to all with favours to none. That said I'm not advocating corporate or individual tax welfare

Funny you say that. They original environmentalists were conservationists!

Wildlife management, water management, etc....

They were right-wingers.
gf

climber
Oct 5, 2012 - 05:47pm PT
Um, i was thinking more like off-shore tax shelters a la bain or maybe the oil lease drilling allowances- thats' corporate welfare in my books -what you laid out are deductions for legitimate investments.
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Oct 5, 2012 - 05:49pm PT
What makes you think that Rmoney & the GOP is any more capable (or has any intentions) of achieving the kind of 'fiscal conservatism' that is all-important to you?

Are you as gullible to campaign rhetoric as the Libs you love to criticize for the same?
gf

climber
Oct 5, 2012 - 05:49pm PT
And many conservatives continue to be environmentalists, and that doesn't mean they are voting for the GOP which is SO far from being a conservative part it isn't even funny -don't let a bunch of trash it and run opportunists sully the good name of environmental conservatism.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 5, 2012 - 05:50pm PT
gf, do you really care about that? Is there any relevance, if it's actually true?

Or do you care about a steward of the economy?
Dave Kos

Trad climber
Temecula
Oct 5, 2012 - 05:51pm PT
Funny you say that. They original environmentalists were conservationists!

Wildlife management, water management, etc....

They were right-wingers.

Yes, if John Muir were alive today he would be the keynote speaker at Tea Party rallies.
gf

climber
Oct 5, 2012 - 05:52pm PT
DR F -i a lot of ways TR espoused traditional conservative doctrine -the so called conservatives back then were once again wrapping themselves in that flag so they could rob the country blind.
Just as we have never seen a true socialist govt we haven't seen a true conservative one -just mere bastardizations.
gf

climber
Oct 5, 2012 - 05:53pm PT
bluey -no tea partier or current GOP leader could claim to be a steward of the economy with the breaks they are giving the top 5%
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 5, 2012 - 05:54pm PT
What makes you think that Rmoney & the GOP is any more capable (or has any intentions) of achieving the kind of 'fiscal conservatism' that is all-important to you?

It's like this...Obama is a clear liar, Romney is an unknown, but appears to be honest because he is a stupid Mormon that has to be honest, and has a record of honesty.

Who would you trust?

DR F -i a lot of ways TR espoused traditional conservative doctrine -the so called conservatives back then were once again wrapping themselves in that flag so they could rob the country blind.
Just as we have never seen a true socialist govt we haven't seen a true conservative one -just mere bastardizations.

Wow this is why I don't hang here anymore...you ppl are crazy! Weird....
Dave Kos

Trad climber
Temecula
Oct 5, 2012 - 05:55pm PT
What makes you think that Rmoney & the GOP is any more capable (or has any intentions) of achieving the kind of 'fiscal conservatism' that is all-important to you?

Romney is going to cut everyones taxes, increase military spending, and reduce the deficit.

He said so!
gf

climber
Oct 5, 2012 - 05:56pm PT
oh for gods sake dr F -drop the flipping dogma and recognize that JKG was a neo conservative in many of his policies -just like how the current admin are moderate republicans in all but name
TFPU

Sport climber
Idaho
Oct 5, 2012 - 05:58pm PT
Ok Blue. I don't agree with everything you write (ok I don't agree with most of what you write on supertopo) but I appreciate the response to my question. Take it easy
Dave Kos

Trad climber
Temecula
Oct 5, 2012 - 05:59pm PT
It's like this...Obama is a clear liar, Romney is an unknown, but appears to be honest because he is a stupid Mormon that has to be honest, and has a record of honesty.

I was trying to be the silliest person in this thread, but nothing can best that one.

cowpoke

climber
Oct 5, 2012 - 06:07pm PT
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49307621

US unemployment below 8 pct, first time since 2009
Published: Friday, 5 Oct 2012 | 5:44 PM ET

WASHINGTON - The U.S. unemployment rate dropped below 8 percent for the first time since the month President Barack Obama took office, a surprising lift for both the economy and his re-election hopes in the final weeks of the campaign.

The rate, the most-watched measure of the country's economic health, tumbled to 7.8 percent in September from 8.1 percent in August. It fell because a government survey of households found that 873,000 more people had jobs, the biggest jump since January 2003.

The government's other monthly survey, of employers, showed they added a modest 114,000 jobs in September, but it also showed job growth in July and August was stronger than first thought.

Obama, eager to shift attention from a disappointing performance at the first presidential debate, said Friday that the report showed the country "has come too far to turn back now."

His Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, countered: "This is not what a real recovery looks like."

The drop brought the jobless rate back to where it was when Obama was sworn in, in January 2009, and snapped a 43-month streak in which unemployment was 8 percent or higher — a run Romney had been emphasizing.

The October jobs report comes out Nov. 2, four days before the election, so Friday's report provided one of the final snapshots of the economy as undecided voters make up their minds.

The government calculates the unemployment rate by calling 60,000 households and asking whether the adults have jobs, and whether those who don't are looking for work.

Those who do not have jobs and are looking are counted as unemployed. Those who aren't looking are not considered part of the work force and aren't counted as unemployed.

A separate monthly survey seeks information from 140,000 companies and government agencies that together employ about one in three nonfarm workers in the United States.

That survey found that the economy added 114,000 jobs in September, the fewest since June. Most of the job growth came in service businesses such as health care and restaurants.

The Labor Department raised its job-creation figures by a total of 86,000 jobs for July and August. The July figure was revised from 141,000 to 181,000, and the August figure from 96,000 to 142,000.

Taken together, the two surveys suggest the job situation in the United States is better than was thought.

Economist Joel Naroff, president of Naroff Economic Advisors, called the strong employment reports "a shocker" that showed the job market was sturdier than most economists had thought.

Financial markets seemed less impressed. The Dow Jones industrial average climbed as much as 86 points in early trading but drifted lower for most of the rest of the day. It finished up 34 points at 13,610. The Standard & Poor's 500 index, a broader measure, was down a fraction of a point.

Stock indexes have been trading at or near their highest levels since December 2007, the month the Great Recession began. They have gotten a lift from Federal Reserve efforts to stimulate the economy, and by a European Central Bank plan to buy the bonds of financially troubled countries to ease a debt crisis there.

The yield on the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury note climbed by 0.06 percentage point to 1.73 percent, a sign that investors were more willing to embrace risk and leave the relative safety of the bond market.

The unemployment figures were so surprisingly strong that some pundits and at least one member of Congress, Florida Republican Allen West, accused the Obama administration of manipulating the statistics to help the president's prospects.

On Wednesday, Obama was widely seen as having lost his first debate with Romney.

Jack Welch, the retired former CEO of General Electric, said on Twitter: "Unbelievable jobs numbers ... these Chicago guys will do anything ... can't debate so change numbers."

But the unemployment data is calculated by a government agency, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, under tight security and with no oversight or input from the White House.

Keith Hall, a former commissioner of the BLS who was appointed by President George W. Bush, said the numbers could not have been manipulated.

"It's impossible to do it and get away with it," he said. "These numbers are very trustworthy."

Economists offered reasons not to read too much into them, though. Most of the increase in employed Americans came from those who had to settle for part-time work: 582,000 more people reported that they were working part-time last month but wanted full-time jobs.

That is the biggest increase in so-called underemployed Americans since February 2009, during the depths of the Great Recession.

Economic troubles in Europe and Asia also may be taking a toll on American factories. Manufacturing employment dropped by 16,000 in September after falling by 22,000 in August.

Factory hiring had been a source of economic strength the past two years: Factory jobs rose last year at the fastest pace since 1997.

But Europe's ongoing economic crisis, along with a slowdown in China, means demand for U.S.-made goods is drying up and "the days of robust manufacturing payrolls growth are likely behind us," said Chris Jones, an economist at TD Economics.

The unemployment rate has fallen from a peak of 10 percent in October 2009. But a big part of the drop over the past three years came because so many Americans stopped looking for work, so they weren't counted as unemployed.

Some were retiring baby boomers. Others were so discouraged by the weak job market that they stopped putting out resumes.

Economists were pleased with September's drop in unemployment because it happened for the right reasons: More Americans got jobs. And the work force grew by 418,000, the most since February, suggesting people are more optimistic about finding jobs. Because 873,000 more people did find work, the number of unemployed fell by 456,000. And that decline pushed the unemployment rate down.

Arthur Nazh was not surprised to hear that the unemployment rate fell. Business has improved this year at the kiosk where he sells souvenirs at a mall in Arlington, Va.

The economy "is getting better," said Nazh, 27, who employs six people and said he plans to vote for Obama because the economy needs more time to heal. "People are starting to buy more, spend more money."

Obama and Romney campaigned Friday in Nazh's home state and others that could tip to either candidate and determine the outcome of the election. Romney released three ads, mostly focused on jobs.

"These are tough times in this community," Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, told a rally outside a construction equipment store in Abingdon, Va. "We're going to bring back jobs and bring back America."

At a campaign stop in Cleveland, Obama declared: "We are moving forward again."

"Today's news should give us some encouragement," the president told thousands at Cleveland State University. "It shouldn't be an excuse for the other side to try to talk down the economy just to try to score a few political points."

The political back-and-forth over the unemployment numbers underscored the centrality of jobs to the election after a year in which the economy has been difficult to read.

The job market got off to a strong start in 2012. Employers added an average 226,000 jobs the first three months of the year.

Hiring in January, February and March was probably even stronger than that: The Labor Department has said 386,000 more jobs were created in the year that ended in March, but it has not assigned the jobs to specific months yet.

Job growth slowed sharply to an average 67,000 a month from April through June. And the weakness appeared to have continued into the summer, raising fears that a slow and steady economic recovery was losing momentum.

But the revisions to the July and August figures on Friday eased those fears somehwat. Monthly job growth was back up to an average 146,000 from July through September.

Naroff, the economist, predicted that unemployment would inch back up, and that job growth would settle at about 150,000 per month for the next several months. Economists at PNC Financial Services Group predict job growth will accelerate to 170,000 per month in 2013.

The economy is still far from full health. The number of U.S. jobs peaked in January 2008, a month after the Great Recession officially started, at 138 million. The job market shed 8.8 million jobs by February 2010. Since then, the economy has regained 4.6 million, or a little more than half, of those lost jobs.

No incumbent president since Gerald Ford in 1976 has faced re-election when the unemployment rate was as high as September's 7.8 percent, even after the sharp drop from August. Ford lost to Jimmy Carter.

Ronald Reagan faced 7.2 percent unemployment in 1984 and trounced Walter Mondale to win a second term.

___

AP Economics Writer Michael Sandler contributed to this report.
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 5, 2012 - 06:16pm PT
Romney is going to cut everyones taxes, increase military spending, and reduce the deficit.

He said so!
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 5, 2012 - 06:19pm PT
This is why I left. You people really depress me.

I don't know what else to say. Have fun, fools!
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Oct 5, 2012 - 06:21pm PT
Obama is no more a liar than Shrub. (Considerably less so, of course.)

If we go down the list of campaign promises that both Shrub & Obama made, there's probably a similar percent that remained unfulfilled, but there's no comparison in the human impacts of their policies.

The most notable failure of the Obama administration was economic improvement that was too slow in coming.

The most notable failure(s) of the previous Republican administration were a war that cost thousands of human lies, and a historic shithole of an economy.

That was just four years ago....you really expect us to forget that, and hand you the reigns again?


apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Oct 5, 2012 - 06:24pm PT
"I don't know what else to say."

HOW ABOUT GOOD-BYE.....ONCE AND FOR ALL, FOREVER, AND FOR GOOD????!!!!
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 5, 2012 - 06:27pm PT
I cannot guarantee that, as#@&%e.
paganmonkeyboy

climber
mars...it's near nevada...
Oct 5, 2012 - 06:28pm PT
you can't quit...


its like an itch, the taco...it gets under your skin...

Suuuuuuuure - I don't need to argue about mormons or chem trails, I don't need to post about shoulder decay....I can stop at any time...desert towers ? clipping bolts ? meh - old news. I've got nothing to say I haven't already said twice...

I miss Ouch. I miss Juan D. Woody. the list goes on and on - And blue - as much as I disagree with you all the time, your carbonara was awesome and I'd play music with you any day ;-)

Yeah...I can quit...just one more post...then I'm gone...
gf

climber
Oct 5, 2012 - 06:33pm PT
stick around bluey
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 5, 2012 - 06:34pm PT
Good to see ya, tom!!!!

And yer right! I dig politics.

Me, you, FAcelift next year, bra!
paganmonkeyboy

climber
mars...it's near nevada...
Oct 5, 2012 - 06:46pm PT
there. you bring bacon and pasta, i got the vino...
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Oct 5, 2012 - 06:47pm PT
go away bluey
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 5, 2012 - 06:47pm PT
I miss Woody too....

He is not forgotten. Carbonara lives foreveeeeeeer. Woody doesn't. Well, maybe he does in heaven, but you know he's left us.

Miss ya, Tom! Be safe, and "climb on".
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 5, 2012 - 06:54pm PT
Tom, I'm all in, bro! I'll make the carbonara, bra!~ You know me!

If ya come out sooner, call me...
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Oct 5, 2012 - 06:55pm PT
Actually, it's a good question if you consider the real definition of Conservatism.

Wikipedia lists the following Forms:

    Liberal conservatism
    Conservative liberalism
    Libertarian conservatism
    Fiscal conservatism
    Green conservatism
    National and traditional conservatism
    Cultural and social conservatism
    Religious conservatism
    Progressive conservatism

I'm all for getting more of and restoring some of these.

But in the sense of Neoconservatism, nehh, what a pile.
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Reno, Nuh VAAAA duh
Oct 5, 2012 - 07:07pm PT

I miss Ouch. I miss Juan D. Woody. the list goes on and on - And blue - as much as I disagree with you all the time, your carbonara was awesome and I'd play music with you any day ;-)

I wish I knew the IRL blue, he sounds like a good guy. We just get the butt plug version here on the taco.
paganmonkeyboy

climber
mars...it's near nevada...
Oct 5, 2012 - 07:20pm PT
we get that from a lot of people ;-)

bluey's heart is in the right spot. and if he really quit smoking cigs, it won't explode ;-)
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 5, 2012 - 11:04pm PT
I'm still workin on the smokes, Pagan. I hit a tobacco-pipe now. Freaks people out too, long hair, dude smoking a pipe..."hey, it's just tobacco!"

I miss you, Tom.

As for politics? C'mon, we have a problem. And it ain't revenue, it's spending more than we take in.

Soaking the "rich" will never cure this, only controlling spending will. Most adults realize this.

Stay thirsty my friends. (I just had 3 teeth yanked from my skull, and I'm well lubricated on day 3, the day of swelling).

Climb on!
Sierra Ledge Rat

Mountain climber
Old and Broken Down in Appalachia
Oct 6, 2012 - 09:06am PT
Conservatives cannot ever hope to rebuilt a viable movement until they rid themselves of the religious fanataics who have hijacked the movement.

Jolly Roger

Trad climber
here and there
Oct 6, 2012 - 10:44am PT
Nor, can they ever make a difference, if the Religous Left wing whacko's don't see the truth.

The gov't is too big. It was never designed to take care of all the people. Wellfare is out of control. Military is out of control. All Federal agencies are out of control.

Most liberals would agree that, the Military Spending, and Homeland Security is out of control. But that is were they leave it.

I think you would find that most of the Conservative's, and the movement that was started by Ron Paul, would agree with most of you lefties. But as long as you are stonewalling every single advance by any of us, you are not helping.

The gov't is too big and greedy. It is in bed and run by Corprotacracy, Ron Paul would fix this if given the chance.

The banking cabal would be dealt with swiftly.

States, would make the decisions you all want to be made, and not the Gov't. You would have a better chance of getting what you want at the state level, then in the National level, with the bought and paid for jokers we have now.

True conservatism, based on the Founding Fathers platform is what this country needs. Not the Right or Left BS we have now.

If you all saw how this would better our country and your lives you would be advocates too. Others would listen. However, you lefties seem stuck in your ways far worse then any religious right.

Get the decisions to the state level, reduce the Fed Gov't. Retract from the global police that we are, bring home our troops, secure our border, and work on making this country coimpetitive. All the while you can still work toward Green Energies.

You lefties need to see what is needed, and help the cuase. Otherwise we are all screwed.
gf

climber
Oct 6, 2012 - 11:04am PT
The Federal Governement sets a minimun standard that all states should maintain for pollution, education, welfare, etc.

Who says the Governemnet doesn't have the rights to take care of it's citizens, why shouldn't it provide health care, welfare and food stamps

I'm with you on this F-but i do believe that there are obligations and rights that come with being a citizen -be it the top 5% paying their fair share or the bottom 5% being given the opportunity to engage in the dignity of work to paraphrase FDR -even if its make work like what the CCC performed in Yosemite pre facelift days. As I noted upthread coprporate welfare is insidious but so is non means tested personal welfare

g
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Oct 6, 2012 - 11:11am PT



bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA

Topic Author's Reply - Oct 5, 2012 - 03:19pm PT
This is why I left. You people really depress me.

I don't know what else to say. Have fun, fools!

You leave then come back and post on this thread, and call everyone else fools?

Why not stick to climbing threads here? You'll get less aggravated, and get along better with other climbers who are typically much less conservative than you.
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 6, 2012 - 11:26am PT

It's like this...Obama is a clear liar, Romney is an unknown, but appears to be honest because he is a stupid Mormon that has to be honest, and has a record of honesty.

Who would you trust?

Blue, do you really believe this statement of yours?
Jolly Roger

Trad climber
here and there
Oct 6, 2012 - 11:38am PT
I just skimmed the above. Have tons of yard work to do.

Dr F. I would argue otherwise on the founding fathers.

They fought against what I would call both the current NEO Con contengent, and the Left Contigent of large goverment, and higher taxes.

The founding fathers fought against goverment control, and the taxation put on them for the Rich few back in England. Same as with all their colonies. They believed becuase they inherited wealth they should control the world.

The founding fathers fought this regime, to provide a place of freedom.

The left as much as the far right want to take this away.

True conservatives believe in limited goverment and states rights, as set by the Founding Fathers. They warned against what we have now, both in the Industrial Military complex, and the Lefts push for large gov't.

Both lead to the absolute control by the gov't. The only way to stop this is to listen to what they said, see how currupt this system is, and make a change. This only will happen if you lefties stop throwing bombs, and start getting the message.

Romney/Obama are both jokes. A true conservative see's this, and won't support either. You guys would give your nut sack for Obama to get re-elected. Rather than being an advocate for true change.

Back to work. I don't get that free money Obama gives out, so I have to work for what I want.




bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 6, 2012 - 12:22pm PT
Jolly Roger, I hear ya, bro, but Ron Paul ain't in the race. You have 2 choices.

Pick one.
couchmaster

climber
pdx
Oct 6, 2012 - 12:24pm PT
Since Bluering posted the first post, our national debt has gone form 4 tillion to $16 trillion. What that means Dr F, is that you are not paying enough taxes. Your share that you have deferred is currently over $140,000 and growing larger daily. Same as the rest of us taxpayers. Since we cannot cover the existing bill, doesn't it make you scratch your head and wonder where the end game for this is? How far in debt will we go until it all comes crashing down?

Check this: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Hope that the spelling was good enough for you. Is that the most important thing here to you? Leaving aside the republican/democrat and even the liberal/conservative thing, how do you respond to just this huge US debt issue that appears unsolvable?

Ricky

climber
Sometimes LA
Oct 6, 2012 - 12:26pm PT

But you'd prefer to be riding the Cain Train, wouldn't you?
couchmaster

climber
pdx
Oct 6, 2012 - 12:30pm PT
Blueie asked:
.... Ron Paul ain't in the race. You have 2 choices.

Pick one.

Gary Johnson: better man than Ron Paul for someone who wants less goverment intrusions and doesn't want a right wing social agenda stuff down their throat. IMO.http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 6, 2012 - 12:33pm PT
Bill, pick one of the 2. A vote for Gary (good man) is a vote for the Socialist In Chief.

I'm just sayin'....
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 6, 2012 - 12:52pm PT
rMoney, "Harvester" in thief.
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 6, 2012 - 12:58pm PT
What is in the mind of die-hard Repugnicants suffering from a serious case of O.D.S.
Well read for your self. If you find yourself in agreement with this persons views then you may want to seek professional help. At least you may want to take a break from rightwing radio for a while.


OMG. ROTFLMFAO. He's not a failure if you love government overreach and socialism. I can't believe people with any intelligence at all fall for this clown's crap. He has the most corrupt regime (administration)of all time. Maybe not the Roman empire.

He hates the Jewish people. He's not too crazy about Hispanics. Hates the British because they put his daddy in prison once. Not fond of Europeans of any kind. The only thing this man loves is POWER. He is drunk with it. He hangs around with the left wing hypocritical millionaires and billionaires who share his thirst for power.

In the 60's and 70's I believed in many liberal ideas. Back then liberal meant open-minded. That no longer is the left wing agenda. They are incredibly closed minded. It is now wealth and power at the expense of everyone else. WAKE UP Phil, the 60's are gone.

People used to come to America to build a life for themselves and their families, not for all the freebies. As the nanny state continues to grow, more and more people will become "victims" of entitlements. You know Hitler, Stalin and other dictators like Hussein fed the people so they would listen to their propaganda and lies without question. One out every 5 households get food stamps. Sound familiar? It will if he and others like him are allowed to impose their sick beliefs on innocent people. American kids have been programmed for years in school to start to accept things without question.

If things are so bad here, why have people wanted to come here for well over 200 years? At the rate this country is deteriorating, we may not have that situation in the years to come. They'll stay where they are at because there will be nothing exceptional about America anymore. We are already in trouble as our education system is a failure. American kids rank 17th and 25th in the world in math and science. We are losing our place as a world leader in just about everything. We are the laughing stock in many places around the world. Check the middle east. Daddy O said (amidst apologizing to the world for America) "we will extend our hand if you unclench your fist". How's that working out? Guess that catch phrase didn't match "I have a dream today". Of course Dr. King didn't hate America like this dictator. He just wanted some equality. (Liberal)

Now the left wing nut jobs call themselves "Progressives". I always thought progressive meant to improve not destroy something. I don't even recognize my country anymore. This was once the greatest republic on the planet -- too bad you don't remember it, Phil. Oh, and by the way, the housing bubble that caused the economy to tank, was forced on the banks by a democratic congress. The plan that "everyone should have a house" was actually formed by Clinton and Carter. George Bush had nothing to do with that socialist failure when it was inaugurated.

I don't know where this guy had all that time to impose his will on us, what with traveling all over in his favorite R.V. (Air Force One) at a cost of $185,000 an hour. " Thank you to those of you who pay taxes" was heard as he flew out of sight. Nobody heard the "suckers" under his breath.

I know I'm wasting my time on you, but it is fun rebuking stupidity. Got to go Comrade(s). Be careful what you wish for.

Now the only FoX talking point that he neglected is the oft used complaint about Golfing. And that is because the writer (my brother) has been an avid golfer most of his life. But that is only one of the hypocrisies he presents. You see he is an unrepentant racists and cares nothing for Hispanics or Jews or Immigrants of any kind. He is an equal opportunity hater. He can't stand Europe or Europeans Old or New. These are not his issues they are talking points. He rails against ObamaCare calling it the Socialist nail in the coffin for America. And yet, paradoxically he just had tummy tuck surgery courtesy of Medicaid. You see my brother who was once an Olympic hopeful athlete and a very intelligent young man has warped into an angry and hateful morbidly obese (over 400 lbs) man towing an oxygen tank. My brother is solely responsible for his abysmal health and had no qualms about having "socialist medicine" helping him out. Yet he would have millions of Americans, like me, denied insurance coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Hmmmmm... My barely employed older brother drank himself into dismal obesity and and it's OK for him to have the rest of US pay for his surgery. But me, who was injured working overseas for the US government, should now be denied coverage since I've lost my insurance through divorce.


Is this one of the "Thousand Points of Light" Daddy Bush promised US with his "Compassionate Conservatism"?
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 6, 2012 - 01:04pm PT
It's easy to couch our system as Rethuglican and Demoncrat. Too easy.

Try to look at the big picture. Everyone knows I'm a conservative (not necessarily Repub), so you know how I roll.

But do you Obama supporters really think he's the best one to lead us FORWARD? Really?
John M

climber
Oct 6, 2012 - 01:06pm PT
But do you Obama supporters really think he's the best one to lead us FORWARD? Really?

No.. but I would take him over Romney any day.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 6, 2012 - 01:13pm PT
What's wrong with Romney/Ryan, John?
Gary

Social climber
Monza by the streetlight
Oct 6, 2012 - 01:19pm PT
For starters, he's a lying stack of sh#t.
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 6, 2012 - 01:23pm PT
And for finishers, He's a lying sack of vulture poo.

photo not found
Missing photo ID#266807


And yes I believe Obama is the best to continue to move US forward.
dirtbag

climber
Oct 6, 2012 - 01:32pm PT
And in between, he makes Pinocchio look like George Washington.
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 6, 2012 - 01:33pm PT
The best way to restore true and sensible conservatism is to throw all the Christian neo-fundies and TeaBaggers out of the GOP. Let saner heads prevail.

Worth repeating.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 6, 2012 - 01:38pm PT
What did Romney lie about?

And conversely, what has Obama lied about?
Norwegian

Trad climber
Placerville, California
Oct 6, 2012 - 01:40pm PT
bluering,

you stand for greed, excess, environmental rape, and unconstitued social profiling.

you should prolly just lay down and author a new dream.
somewhere along the way you were bumped dumb.

by the way im not any better off,
except maybe in the environmental rape issue.
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 6, 2012 - 01:40pm PT
What did Romney lie about?
Nothing, nothing at all and neither did Ryan. That's why they call him "Honest Paul the Mountain Man". So don't worry the tooth fairly will be here by morning. Now back to nap time.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 6, 2012 - 01:44pm PT
you stand for greed, excess, environmental rape, and unconstitued social profiling.

Wow, that's insensitive of you to "profile" me like that. Is Obama unconstitutionally profiling people, idiot? Is he engaged in profiled greed to his cronies?

You people are brainwashed.
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 6, 2012 - 01:51pm PT
You people are brainwashed.
Yeah!
Do you want my brother's # 'cause you two would be chums.
You know Bluey, it's a known fact the rMoney has passed syphilis to his five boys. Mitty picked it up from one of His "Dalliances" in Gay Paree while real American men were dying in the Tet Offensive.

I will prove it if you prove what you said.


But I am confused, what is "profiled greed"?
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 6, 2012 - 02:01pm PT
But I am confused, what is "profiled greed"?


Giving Stimulus cash to friends and 'friendly causes'. I call if graft, but I was rolling with Norwegian's lingo.
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 6, 2012 - 02:04pm PT
Like Billions to the Oil industry?


Or more like Billions in no bid contracts to Haliburton?




Bluey, get a wheel chair because you have no legs to stand on and you keep getting your feet stuck in your mouth.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 6, 2012 - 02:08pm PT
No, at the oil contracts produced something of value, like a natural resource.

I'm talking failed "Green Energy" failures in the billions. Wasted cash that made friends rich at our expense. My child's expense.

Thanks Obama, you built that! Asshole!!!
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 6, 2012 - 02:13pm PT
Do you know the truth of what you try to speak about?

90 Billion went to nuclear waste clean up and only 640 million were lost to companies who couldn't compete with Chinese Government subsidized Solar panel production.
Turn off the talk radio and look up the truth for once.
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Oct 6, 2012 - 02:17pm PT
like squandering possibly billions on military contractors?


 Philo already noted this… continue to blather bluarab, and continue the smack-down of the stupid to the rest.
couchmaster

climber
pdx
Oct 6, 2012 - 03:26pm PT
Dr F said:
"are you High???

The actual Gov spending now (by Obama) has never been lower

The Bush Tax cuts and wars are still in effect, keeping the revenue low, and spending high

Saying that spending is out of control because of the Obama admin is just plain wrong

Bush left us with $11 trillion in debt, plus $3 trillion that he left off the books, so when Obama took office, he was saddled with $14 Trillion

Obviously voting for more Republicans will not help pay down the debt
Clinton was working on it, and Obama will work on it after the Bush Tax cuts are repelled

Romney's job was to take over companies and saddle them with debt, just like what the Republicans have done, steal from the Country, and leave an IOU for the rest of us

When have the Republicans ever paid a cent on the debt, Never!"



High on a ladder Craig. Working on my house (climbed yesterday and still sore). I misstated the numbers but compare the sediment of my post to this CBS news chart and story by the CBS White House reporter:

"National Debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush


Chart - Deficit 2012 CBS


(CBS News) The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.

The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

The latest posting from the Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department shows the National Debt now stands at $15.566 trillion. It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush's last day in office, which coincided with President Obama's first day.

The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services.

Mr. Obama has been quick to blame his predecessor for the soaring Debt, saying Mr. Bush paid for two wars and a Medicare prescription drug program with borrowed funds.

The federal budget sent to Congress last month by Mr. Obama, projects the National Debt will continue to rise as far as the eye can see. The budget shows the Debt hitting $16.3 trillion in 2012, $17.5 trillion in 2013 and $25.9 trillion in 2022.

Federal budget records show the National Debt once topped 121% of GDP at the end of World War II. The Debt that year, 1946, was, by today's standards, a mere $270 billion dollars.

Mr. Obama doesn't mention the National Debt much, though he does want to be seen trying to reduce the annual budget deficit, though it's topped a trillion dollars for four years now.

As part of his "Win the Future" program, Mr. Obama called for "taking responsibility for our deficits, by cutting wasteful, excessive spending wherever we find it."

His latest budget projects a $1.3 trillion deficit this year declining to $901 billion in 2012, and then annual deficits in the range of $500 billion to $700 billion in the 10 years to come.

If Mr. Obama wins re-election, and his budget projections prove accurate, the National Debt will top $20 trillion in 2016, the final year of his second term. That would mean the Debt increased by 87 percent, or $9.34 trillion, during his two terms.

© 2012 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved."

couchmaster

climber
pdx
Oct 6, 2012 - 03:30pm PT
Here is President Obamas Whitehouse.gov) numbers, formatting didn't come through, but essentially the same:

End of Fiscal Year In Millions of Dollars As Percentages of GDP
Gross Federal Debt Less: Held by Federal Government Accounts Equals: Held by the Public Gross Federal Debt Less: Held by Federal Government Accounts Equals: Held by the Public
Total Federal Reserve System Other Total Federal Reserve System Other
1940 50,696 7,924 42,772 2,458 40,314 52.4 8.2 44.2 2.5 41.6
1941 57,531 9,308 48,223 2,180 46,043 50.4 8.2 42.3 1.9 40.4
1942 79,200 11,447 67,753 2,640 65,113 54.9 7.9 47.0 1.8 45.1
1943 142,648 14,882 127,766 7,149 120,617 79.1 8.3 70.9 4.0 66.9
1944 204,079 19,283 184,796 14,899 169,897 97.6 9.2 88.3 7.1 81.2
1945 260,123 24,941 235,182 21,792 213,390 117.5 11.3 106.2 9.8 96.4
1946 270,991 29,130 241,861 23,783 218,078 121.7 13.1 108.7 10.7 98.0
1947 257,149 32,810 224,339 21,872 202,467 110.3 14.1 96.2 9.4 86.8
1948 252,031 35,761 216,270 21,366 194,904 98.2 13.9 84.3 8.3 76.0
1949 252,610 38,288 214,322 19,343 194,979 93.1 14.1 79.0 7.1 71.9
1950 256,853 37,830 219,023 18,331 200,692 94.1 13.9 80.2 6.7 73.5
1951 255,288 40,962 214,326 22,982 191,344 79.7 12.8 66.9 7.2 59.8
1952 259,097 44,339 214,758 22,906 191,852 74.3 12.7 61.6 6.6 55.0
1953 265,963 47,580 218,383 24,746 193,637 71.4 12.8 58.6 6.6 52.0
1954 270,812 46,313 224,499 25,037 199,462 71.8 12.3 59.5 6.6 52.9
1955 274,366 47,751 226,616 23,607 203,009 69.3 12.1 57.2 6.0 51.3
1956 272,693 50,537 222,156 23,758 198,398 63.9 11.8 52.0 5.6 46.5
1957 272,252 52,931 219,320 23,035 196,285 60.4 11.7 48.6 5.1 43.5
1958 279,666 53,329 226,336 25,438 200,898 60.8 11.6 49.2 5.5 43.7
1959 287,465 52,764 234,701 26,044 208,657 58.6 10.8 47.9 5.3 42.6
1960 290,525 53,686 236,840 26,523 210,317 56.0 10.3 45.6 5.1 40.5
1961 292,648 54,291 238,357 27,253 211,104 55.2 10.2 45.0 5.1 39.8
1962 302,928 54,918 248,010 29,663 218,347 53.4 9.7 43.7 5.2 38.5
1963 310,324 56,345 253,978 32,027 221,951 51.8 9.4 42.4 5.3 37.0
1964 316,059 59,210 256,849 34,794 222,055 49.3 9.2 40.0 5.4 34.6
1965 322,318 61,540 260,778 39,100 221,678 46.9 9.0 37.9 5.7 32.2
1966 328,498 64,784 263,714 42,169 221,545 43.5 8.6 34.9 5.6 29.3
1967 340,445 73,819 266,626 46,719 219,907 42.0 9.1 32.9 5.8 27.1
1968 368,685 79,140 289,545 52,230 237,315 42.5 9.1 33.3 6.0 27.3
1969 365,769 87,661 278,108 54,095 224,013 38.6 9.2 29.3 5.7 23.6
1970 380,921 97,723 283,198 57,714 225,484 37.6 9.6 28.0 5.7 22.3
1971 408,176 105,140 303,037 65,518 237,519 37.8 9.7 28.1 6.1 22.0
1972 435,936 113,559 322,377 71,426 250,951 37.1 9.7 27.4 6.1 21.3
1973 466,291 125,381 340,910 75,181 265,729 35.6 9.6 26.0 5.7 20.3
1974 483,893 140,194 343,699 80,648 263,051 33.6 9.7 23.9 5.6 18.3
1975 541,925 147,225 394,700 84,993 309,707 34.7 9.4 25.3 5.4 19.9
1976 628,970 151,566 477,404 94,714 382,690 36.2 8.7 27.5 5.4 22.0
TQ 643,561 148,052 495,509 96,702 398,807 35.0 8.1 27.0 5.3 21.7
1977 706,398 157,294 549,104 105,004 444,100 35.8 8.0 27.8 5.3 22.5
1978 776,602 169,476 607,126 115,480 491,646 35.0 7.6 27.4 5.2 22.2
1979 829,467 189,161 640,306 115,594 524,712 33.2 7.6 25.6 4.6 21.0
1980 909,041 197,118 711,923 120,846 591,077 33.4 7.2 26.1 4.4 21.7
1981 994,828 205,418 789,410 124,466 664,944 32.5 6.7 25.8 4.1 21.8
1982 1,137,315 212,740 924,575 134,497 790,078 35.3 6.6 28.7 4.2 24.5
1983 1,371,660 234,392 1,137,268 155,527 981,741 39.9 6.8 33.1 4.5 28.5
1984 1,564,586 257,611 1,306,975 155,122 1,151,853 40.7 6.7 34.0 4.0 30.0
1985 1,817,423 310,163 1,507,260 169,806 1,337,454 43.8 7.5 36.4 4.1 32.3
1986 2,120,501 379,878 1,740,623 190,855 1,549,767 48.2 8.6 39.5 4.3 35.2
1987 2,345,956 456,203 1,889,753 212,040 1,677,713 50.4 9.8 40.6 4.6 36.1
1988 2,601,104 549,487 2,051,616 229,218 1,822,398 51.9 11.0 41.0 4.6 36.4
1989 2,867,800 677,084 2,190,716 220,088 1,970,628 53.1 12.5 40.6 4.1 36.5
1990 3,206,290 794,733 2,411,558 234,410 2,177,147 55.9 13.9 42.1 4.1 38.0
1991 3,598,178 909,179 2,688,999 258,591 2,430,408 60.7 15.3 45.3 4.4 41.0
1992 4,001,787 1,002,050 2,999,737 296,397 2,703,341 64.1 16.1 48.1 4.7 43.3
1993 4,351,044 1,102,647 3,248,396 325,653 2,922,744 66.1 16.7 49.3 4.9 44.4
1994 4,643,307 1,210,242 3,433,065 355,150 3,077,915 66.6 17.3 49.2 5.1 44.1
1995 4,920,586 1,316,208 3,604,378 374,114 3,230,264 67.0 17.9 49.1 5.1 44.0
1996 5,181,465 1,447,392 3,734,073 390,924 3,343,149 67.1 18.8 48.4 5.1 43.3
1997 5,369,206 1,596,862 3,772,344 424,518 3,347,826 65.4 19.4 45.9 5.2 40.8
1998 5,478,189 1,757,090 3,721,099 458,182 3,262,917 63.2 20.3 43.0 5.3 37.7
1999 5,605,523 1,973,160 3,632,363 496,644 3,135,719 60.9 21.4 39.4 5.4 34.1
2000 5,628,700 2,218,896 3,409,804 511,413 2,898,391 57.3 22.6 34.7 5.2 29.5
2001 5,769,881 2,450,266 3,319,615 534,135 2,785,480 56.4 24.0 32.5 5.2 27.2
2002 6,198,401 2,657,974 3,540,427 604,191 2,936,235 58.8 25.2 33.6 5.7 27.8
2003 6,760,014 2,846,570 3,913,443 656,116 3,257,327 61.6 25.9 35.6 6.0 29.7
2004 7,354,657 3,059,113 4,295,544 700,341 3,595,203 63.0 26.2 36.8 6.0 30.8
2005 7,905,300 3,313,088 4,592,212 736,360 3,855,852 63.6 26.7 36.9 5.9 31.0
2006 8,451,350 3,622,378 4,828,972 768,924 4,060,048 64.0 27.4 36.6 5.8 30.7
2007 8,950,744 3,915,615 5,035,129 779,632 4,255,497 64.6 28.2 36.3 5.6 30.7
2008 9,986,082 4,183,032 5,803,050 491,127 5,311,923 69.7 29.2 40.5 3.4 37.1
2009 11,875,851 4,331,144 7,544,707 769,160 6,775,547 85.2 31.1 54.1 5.5 48.6
2010 13,528,807 4,509,926 9,018,882 811,669 8,207,213 94.2 31.4 62.8 5.7 57.2
2011 14,764,222 4,636,016 10,128,206 1,664,660 8,463,546 98.7 31.0 67.7 11.1 56.6
2012 estimate 16,350,885 4,772,802 11,578,083 N/A N/A 104.8 30.6 74.2 N/A N/A
2013 estimate 17,547,936 4,911,247 12,636,689 N/A N/A 107.4 30.1 77.4 N/A N/A
2014 estimate 18,499,909 5,054,691 13,445,219 N/A N/A 107.8 29.5 78.4 N/A N/A
2015 estimate 19,426,503 5,229,139 14,197,365 N/A N/A 106.9 28.8 78.1 N/A N/A
2016 estimate 20,391,198 5,411,441 14,979,757 N/A N/A 105.9 28.1 77.8 N/A N/A
2017 estimate 21,325,493 5,612,836 15,712,657 N/A N/A 104.7 27.6 77.1 N/A N/A
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 6, 2012 - 03:32pm PT
like squandering possibly billions on military contractors?

Are you talking about Bush or Obama? Think hard....
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 6, 2012 - 06:03pm PT
Oh yeah that's right now I remember, Bush was a dove who impeded the miltary industrial complex at every turn.


Bluey, are you deliberately obstinate or willfully ignorant?
Take your time I know multiple choice questions are really really hard for right wingers.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Oct 6, 2012 - 06:07pm PT
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 6, 2012 - 06:40pm PT
photo not found
Missing photo ID#263697
Farouk

Boulder climber
Sylvan Grove
Oct 6, 2012 - 07:33pm PT
Even on the books, Bush left us with a $10 Trillion dollar debt


hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Shame on you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ricky

climber
Sometimes LA
Oct 6, 2012 - 07:57pm PT
Even on the books, Bush left us with a $10 Trillion dollar debt


hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Shame on you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


That's an accurate number for national debt at the end of the Bush administration. What are you arguing and what are your sources for national debt year ending 12/31/2008?
tradmanclimbs

Ice climber
Pomfert VT
Oct 6, 2012 - 08:00pm PT
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — Arkansas Republicans tried to distance themselves Saturday from a Republican state representative's assertion that slavery was a "blessing in disguise" and a Republican state House candidate who advocates deporting all Muslims.

The claims were made in books written, respectively, by Rep. Jon Hubbard of Jonesboro and House candidate Charlie Fuqua of Batesville. Those books received attention on Internet news sites Friday.

Ricky

climber
Sometimes LA
Oct 6, 2012 - 08:11pm PT

What was the national debt on December 31st, 2008?
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Oct 6, 2012 - 09:31pm PT
What does this crap have to do with the topic? Why don't you take your numbers and your BS back over to your own thread. Where negativity attracts negativity!

What comes around goes around!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Jus Laugh'in
BB
Captain...or Skully

climber
Oct 6, 2012 - 09:40pm PT
There's more than 1 reason why I left Arkansas, tradmanclimbs.
dirtbag

climber
Oct 6, 2012 - 10:26pm PT
Newsflash:

Debts increase during recessions/depressions, and this one has been a doozy,
dirtbag

climber
Oct 6, 2012 - 10:28pm PT
Fighting two wars doesn't help in that respect either.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Oct 6, 2012 - 10:32pm PT



You LIE !
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Oct 6, 2012 - 10:46pm PT
Let's get back on topic
Instead of arguing about money(which I have none). Let's argue about morals:

Homosexual marriage

Legalization of marijuana

Abortion

Foreign wars

I would like to hear personal reasons why you're for or against these topics. Not your affiliated parties opinions but your own ideals...

Buck up soldier!

Jus Wonder'in
BB
Jolly Roger

Trad climber
here and there
Oct 6, 2012 - 11:08pm PT
Let's get back on topic
Instead of arguing about money(which I have none). Let's argue about morals:

Homosexual marriage.................Call it Civil Union, and be done with it

Legalization of marijuana............Yes

Abortion...............The federal gov't should reduce it's spending on this, The cost should be high. (Edit: This tough becuase PP recieves federal funding, but apparently none of it goes to Abortions, however the funding recieved helps keep the procedure costs low) People need to take responsibility, for their decisions. If you don't have the coin, to pay for it then looks like your having a kid, better odds you get you act in gear. Except rare occasions, such as Rape. The choice should be there, but it should not be as easy to come by

Foreign wars................................Minimal at best, only when attacked. If we are to attack a country then proper investigations, and a vote by the people. Absolute proof must be present. Everything we have going now, we should pull out immediately. Secure our own borders. Invest money saved into producing green technology. (EDIT: Re-investigate 911, with a a special look into Mussad not Al Qeada)

Federal Reserve...............Audit it's record from 4 years back, with full disclosure. Extremely transparent board, and Ron Paul, and Dennis Kucinich (Sp?), have to be on this board to make it legit. Maybe even Paul Schiff. It needs to be investigated, the fee structure needs to be investigated...........Everyone penny we spent in Bail-outs needs to be acounted for and each group audited. (Edit: Find out why the money we paid in bailouts, and aparently paid back did not get reduced from our deficit) Then we can move on to the Council On Fariegn Relations, which of it's self is pretty shady.




My respnonse above in Bold with one added......Not much different then you lefties, eh. Time to start being productive, instead bitter.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Oct 7, 2012 - 01:21am PT
JOLLY ROGER FOR PRESIDENT

BRAVO! Simple,concise, and to the point!
I think you've given the citizens freedom of choice. You given the right wing what it wants with terminology and life. You given the left-wing what it wants with civil relationship and smoking pot. And you're reducing the debt!
I totally agree in all the directions you're going. I don't get why anybody couldn't understand this is what's best for America!

Jus Vote'in
BB
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2012 - 01:26am PT
What's really telling is that you leftist rats who blindly defend Obama, are incapable of seeing the truth. He is leading us to a fiscal disaster.

You can blame it on Bush, the Fed, or whatever, but one man is in charge and is not changing direction. He continues down the path of insolvency.

Is he stupid, or is this his intent? (Hint: He's supposed to be smart)

Wake the F*#K UP!!!

edit: I 100% agree w/ Jolly Roger...eh, 99%
Jolly Roger

Trad climber
here and there
Oct 7, 2012 - 09:36am PT
Dr. F

Why don't you answer the questions like an adult, rather than just attacking.

I have edited the post a little, to clear things up so you don't get your panites in a bunch again.

dirtbag

climber
Oct 7, 2012 - 09:55am PT
Here's a difference. I'm much more concerned about unemployment right now than the debt. The debt needs attention, but as a long term problem. Take care of unemployment and the debt will partially resolve itself.
Jolly Roger

Trad climber
here and there
Oct 7, 2012 - 10:00am PT
I would concur, and that is why we need to audit the hell out of the financial institutions. Jobs will create themselves when the people have more faith in the gov't. Right now we are at the mercy of a bunch of bankers, and their devaluation of the dollar. Fix this and the jobs will come. Retrack our troops, and invest in green energy. Jobs will be created.
can't say

Social climber
Pasadena CA
Oct 7, 2012 - 10:24am PT
If you want the Fed audited for the last 4 years, why stop there? I mean lets get down to brass tacks and go back to when LIBOR first became a financial reality. Me thinks the current fiscal hi-jinx started then.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2012 - 11:35am PT
I agree with the last 3 posts.

Unemployment is killing us, and fixing that will help pay off the debt. And yeah, let Paul Ryan and Ronnie Paul do an audit, with a reasonable Dem, of the entire system. Too much waste!

The reason I like Ryan And Paul is that they are not as beholden to anything in particular.
Jolly Roger

Trad climber
here and there
Oct 7, 2012 - 12:03pm PT
Dr. F,

Is it impossible for you to engage in conversation, rather than constantly attack. No offense but you sure make me like the republican side of the coin much better, if your represents the left.

Rather than find common ground you just constantly jab. Sure as hell wouldnt want you as a partner.

Why dont you share your side above, agree, or discuss your points rather than being a d#@&%e....
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2012 - 12:05pm PT
This why I ignore, Dr. F. He will not debate or converse. And he usually issues erroneous facts.
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Oct 7, 2012 - 12:11pm PT
A local editorial on Mammoth's bankruptcy stated that 13 town employees , 7 of which are police officers , are going to lose their jobs because some town council persons blew it and reneged on a contract....The point of the article was that the councilmen who were responsible for this bankruptcy fiasco should be punished for an act of negligence...The punch line is that the only people being punished are the town employees who had nothing to do with the lawsuit...The same thing has happened with the current state of the US economy the only difference being that the banks or whoever were responsible for our depression went unpunished and instead , rewarded for wrecking the economy and millions of Americans lives...The republican solution to solving the problem is to invade Iran and continue the tax cuts for the privaladged and to blame Obama.. These so called fiscal conservatives are going to vote for Romney who is chomping at the bit to take America back to the same destructive path that Bush led us down... If the culprits of the economic melt-down , dems or repubs , are prosecuted and jailed , there will be less inclination to break the law and repeat the same mistakes that went down under the Bush administration..
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2012 - 12:19pm PT
RJ, who's running the country right now? Bush?

Didn't O have 2 years of complete control of the executive and legislative branches?

Did things get better or worse?
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Oct 7, 2012 - 12:41pm PT
Congress spends money, creates legislation, and spends money, not the President


 I've heard it a million times… I get how government works with regards to the press, senate house, and the judges….

Why does it seem that no matter how you/we state it, the conservative blower will never understand? Is this strictly because of the bubble? Or could it be the education deficit?
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2012 - 12:55pm PT
Why does it seem that no matter how you/we state it, the conservative blower will never understand? Is this strictly because of the bubble? Or could it be the education deficit?

Uh, yes, the housing market crashed. It was a long time in the making. What the hell is the "education deficit"?
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Oct 7, 2012 - 12:58pm PT
Dr. F...thanks....couldn't have said it better....Inspite of the reality that you just mentioned , there are the die-hard conservatives that will turn around and vote for more of the same corruption and incompetence that came down under Bush...What's that called when you repeat the same mistakes over and over while expecting different results...? Romney has laid it all out there for everyone to see...He's going to do exactly what Bush orchestrated and the insanity will continue.... Bluering misses the big picture with his simple black and white comeback that Obama had 2 years to solve the problem and failed...
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 7, 2012 - 01:14pm PT
What the hell is the "education deficit"?

Point well made.
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Oct 7, 2012 - 01:24pm PT
What the hell is the "education deficit"?


 umm…. Yours!!!!!

It's a given that I am not the sharpest tool in the shed.. But bloweys conservatism has that non-reality bend to it, or at the very least it has the "I've got my blinders on and I will only notice what will help make my point and nothing else, no matter how related it may be"..

Me thinks that thought was too long.. parse it out if you need to blew
Jolly Roger

Trad climber
here and there
Oct 7, 2012 - 01:35pm PT
When will you guys get it. Both parties are slightly different sides of the same coin. Reigning in the gov't and cracking down on the banking industry is the only way life will get better.

Look, the banks have and always will make money off of loans. The difference now is we've decided, or should I say they have decided they don't need to make loans. We will pad their pockets. All this flooding of our money to the banks has not created sh#t. The banks won't loan, or at least not to the point were it makes since. This is killing small business. Cash is king now. You want something done you better have cash. The banks don't need to risk a thing. We have decided they are to big to fail, for robbing the public blind. If they went down others would step in who played their risk management better.

The gov't is out of control.
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 7, 2012 - 01:40pm PT
Jolly, go you think the GOP will "crack down' on the bank?
Obama tried and the Repugs blocked. Don't be a dupe.
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Oct 7, 2012 - 01:46pm PT
Our Government is not the enemy.
The Right Wingerts are fighting the Government like it's the enemy, which is Unpatriotic and despicable in any way you look at it


 Repugs are unpatriotic, I would go so far as to say down right un-American
Gary

Social climber
Monza by the streetlight
Oct 7, 2012 - 01:47pm PT
So, bluering, did you read this?


http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revolt-of-the-rich/
um bluey read this and then maybe think twice about whos' the tail and whos' the dog.
Jolly Roger

Trad climber
here and there
Oct 7, 2012 - 02:02pm PT
No but Ron Paul would have.
Jolly Roger

Trad climber
here and there
Oct 7, 2012 - 02:03pm PT
Better than any candidate the left has put forward.


Kennedy came close, to shutting it down
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 7, 2012 - 02:04pm PT
But for better or worse he is not an option. Protest votes are a waste of time. So who do you think is more likely to move the Nation in a positive direction?
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2012 - 02:06pm PT
What's that called when you repeat the same mistakes over and over while expecting different results...?

QE1, then QE2, then QE3 (quantitative easing)....and eventual insolvency.
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 7, 2012 - 02:17pm PT
What's that called when you repeat the same mistakes over and over while expecting different results...?

It's called Republicanism.
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Oct 7, 2012 - 02:18pm PT
Just for blew….. Some key elements to the article noted above…. So you don't have to strain yourself by reading too much at one time.


But I am unaware of a well-developed theory from that time about how the super-rich and the corporations they run would secede from the nation state.
I do not mean secession by physical withdrawal from the territory of the state, although that happens from time to time—for example, Erik Prince, who was born into a fortune, is related to the even bigger Amway fortune, and made yet another fortune as CEO of the mercenary-for-hire firm Blackwater, moved his company (renamed Xe) to the United Arab Emirates in 2011. What I mean by secession is a withdrawal into enclaves, an internal immigration, whereby the rich disconnect themselves from the civic life of the nation and from any concern about its well being except as a place to extract loot.

Our plutocracy now lives like the British in colonial India: in the place and ruling it, but not of it. If one can afford private security, public safety is of no concern; if one owns a Gulfstream jet, crumbling bridges cause less apprehension—and viable public transportation doesn’t even show up on the radar screen. With private doctors on call and a chartered plane to get to the Mayo Clinic, why worry about Medicare?

To some degree the rich have always secluded themselves from the gaze of the common herd; their habit for centuries has been to send their offspring to private schools. But now this habit is exacerbated by the plutocracy’s palpable animosity towards public education and public educators, as Michael Bloomberg has demonstrated. To the extent public education “reform” is popular among billionaires and their tax-exempt foundations, one suspects it is as a lever to divert the more than $500 billion dollars in annual federal, state, and local education funding into private hands—meaning themselves and their friends. What Halliburton did for U.S. Army logistics, school privatizers will do for public education. A century ago, at least we got some attractive public libraries out of Andrew Carnegie. Noblesse oblige like Carnegie’s is presently lacking among our seceding plutocracy.

But millions of Americans who do not pay federal income taxes do pay federal payroll taxes. These taxes are regressive, and the dirty little secret is that over the last several decades they have made up a greater and greater share of federal revenues. In 1950, payroll and other federal retirement contributions constituted 10.9 percent of all federal revenues. By 2007, the last “normal” economic year before federal revenues began falling, they made up 33.9 percent. By contrast, corporate income taxes were 26.4 percent of federal revenues in 1950. By 2007 they had fallen to 14.4 percent. So who has skin in the game?




restoring Conservatism (ot)

 Giant Fail


oh, look.. there's more

While there is plenty to criticize the incumbent president for, notably his broadening and deepening of President George W. Bush’s extra-constitutional surveillance state, under President Obama the overall federal tax burden has not been raised, it has been lowered. Approximately half the deficit impact of the stimulus bill was the result of tax-cut provisions. The temporary payroll-tax cut and other miscellaneous tax-cut provisions make up the rest of the cuts we have seen in the last three and a half years. Yet for the president’s heresy of advocating that billionaires who receive the bulk of their income from capital gains should pay taxes at the same rate as the rest of us, Schwarzman said this about Obama: “It’s a war. It’s like when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939.” For a hedge-fund billionaire to defend his extraordinary tax privileges vis-à-vis the rest of the citizenry in such a manner shows an extraordinary capacity to be out-of-touch. He lives in a world apart, psychologically as well as in the flesh.

This lack of skin in the game may explain why Romney has been so coy about releasing his income-tax returns. It would make sense for someone with $264 million in net worth to joke that he is “unemployed”—as if he were some jobless sheet metal worker in Youngstown—if he were really saying in code that his income stream is not a salary subject to payroll deduction. His effective rate for federal taxes, at 14 percent, is lower than that of many a wage slave.

Most present-day Americans, if they think about the historical roots of our wealth-worship at all, will say something about free markets, rugged individualism, and the Horatio Alger myth—all in a purely secular context. But perhaps the most notable 19th-century exponent of wealth as virtue and poverty as the mark of Cain was Russell Herman Conwell, a canny Baptist minister, founder of perhaps the first tabernacle large enough that it could later be called a megachurch, and author of the immensely famous “Acres of Diamonds” speech of 1890 that would make him a rich man. This is what he said:

I say that you ought to get rich, and it is your duty to get rich. … The men who get rich may be the most honest men you find in the community. Let me say here clearly … ninety-eight out of one hundred of the rich men of America are honest. That is why they are rich. That is why they are trusted with money. … I sympathize with the poor, but the number of poor who are to be sympathized with is very small. To sympathize with a man whom God has punished for his sins … is to do wrong … let us remember there is not a poor person in the United States who was not made poor by his own shortcomings.

Evidently Conwell was made of sterner stuff than the sob-sister moralizing in the Sermon on the Mount. Somewhat discordantly, though, Conwell had been drummed out of the military during the Civil War for deserting his post. For Conwell, as for the modern tax-avoiding expat billionaire, the dollar sign tends to trump Old Glory.
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 7, 2012 - 02:23pm PT
What Halliburton did for U.S. Army logistics, school privatizers will do for public education.

Worth emphasizing!
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2012 - 02:59pm PT
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revolt-of-the-rich/

Gary, it's a unique take. It's got a bit of a "the rich suck" flavor to it. Rich people, of course, will protect their assets. And they will take every advantage afforded them, legally, in the tax-code. If they don't, they should have the book thrown at them, just like you/me.

The article comes off as class-ist, and anti-rich. Be careful of a system where wealth can be stolen from the wealthy. And one one where the ambivalent or lazy are unduly rewarded.

Most, but not all, rich people earned their money through tireless work and risk. This is why I'm not rich. I have no desire to go to those lengths, I like to stop and enjoy life. I live wihtin my means and have no desire for wealth. But that's me.

I would not deny movers and shakers of industry and innovation of their drive for wealth and success. It makes us great, and prosperous.
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 7, 2012 - 03:11pm PT
IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jingy posted a link.
You post punctuation marks.





photo not found
Missing photo ID#235649
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Oct 7, 2012 - 03:14pm PT
Be careful of a system where wealth can be stolen from the wealthy.

 Conversely, should we not be careful of a system where money can be stolen from the poor, the working poor or the middle class?
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2012 - 03:30pm PT
Conversely, should we not be careful of a system where money can be stolen from the poor, the working poor or the middle class?


Goes without sayin'. But you'd never admit that "your side" is doing just that, all while trying to tell you that they actually give a crap about the poor/middle class. Look at their actions! Look at the results of their policy.

How many are unemployed now? How many gave up looking for work? How many are now on food-stamps? Did that go up or down because of Obama's "leadership"?.

You can blame Repubs all day/night, but a true leader would have found solutions, he would have brought people together for solutions.
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 7, 2012 - 03:39pm PT
And what exactly have your rich buddies done to help put Americans (not Chinese) back to work?
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2012 - 03:41pm PT
And what exactly have your rich buddies done to help put Americans (not Chinese) back to work?


Nothing. The house tried to pass a budget but the Senate killed it, and Obummer said he'd veto it if it did pass.

Clinton used to know how to work with the Congress.
Farouk

Boulder climber
Sylvan Grove
Oct 7, 2012 - 03:42pm PT
Rich guys hire!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Damn freeloader libs never understand that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Blue is a rockstar on two other forums so you should listen up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 7, 2012 - 03:43pm PT
Well then FarKook why aren't they????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? They are stuffed to the gills with cash, the stock markets are booming and still all they can do is try to discredit the President.



Tell US about that Bill Blue? Just how good would it have been for America?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????



Seriously Farouk we all know you are so embarrassed by the illogical nature of your chosen ideology but could you possibly go lighter on the punctuation marks? It makes you look childish.
Farouk

Boulder climber
Sylvan Grove
Oct 7, 2012 - 03:56pm PT
Last guy who hired you Tuna Boy, was he rich or a homeless lib?????????????????????????????????????

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Rich do the hiring!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2012 - 03:57pm PT
Good lord, help us, do I have to explain the basics?

Business (jobs) is inherently a conservative enterprise. No money=no business. More money (capital)=business growth.

Business tax=less money. Less growth.

Corporate (business) tax in this country cannot compete with foreign markets. It has to be dropped.

Open Keystone! Drop gas (transportation/consumption) prices.

Give the markets faith in investment by restoring Federal spending/lending/printing policies.

In a word, conservatism...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!radz!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 7, 2012 - 04:02pm PT
I am currently doing a huge job for a wealthy liberal who would gladly may more taxes if all the 1% had to. He agrees that rMoney is a sack of crap lying bastard.
Why do you insist that the homeless are liberals? A huge part of the homeless problem is returning vets who thanks to the GOPTeabaggers can't find work. They are mostly conservatives who vote republican. So stuff your exclamation point where it deserves to be.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2012 - 04:06pm PT
He agrees that rMoney is a sack of crap lying bastard.

So, he must be right because he's rich too? Or what? What did Romney lie about? Are you crazy or just lacking in common sense?
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Oct 7, 2012 - 04:07pm PT
printing policies.

 flagrant disregard for conservatism…

The idea of printing your way out of a recession could only have been proposed by a dumbass conservative who has no idea of supply/demand concepts.


but blewrig is brilliant in his perfect observations of the republigoon ideology.


Why do you insist that the homeless are liberals?


 some people have this idea that homelessness is a liberal/conservative dividing line…. Its not true. Fact is most southern states vote republicon, and receive subsidized/public assistance just as much, if not more than in big liberal cities and in those blue states….

another conservative fail
Farouk

Boulder climber
Sylvan Grove
Oct 7, 2012 - 04:43pm PT
I am currently doing a huge job for a wealthy liberal who would gladly may more taxes if all the 1% had to

Maybe he should pay yours too since you are probably working under the table!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 7, 2012 - 04:49pm PT
Farkook who the hell do you think you are other than another deluded republican and an anonymous coward troll.
If you are going to make baseless accusations ten pull up your big boy pants.
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Oct 7, 2012 - 04:51pm PT
anonymous coward troll


 Key elements of that last statement
Farouk

Boulder climber
Sylvan Grove
Oct 7, 2012 - 05:05pm PT
So are you working under the table or not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????????????????

Romney pays, why not you??????????????????????????????????
Jennie

Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
Oct 7, 2012 - 05:05pm PT
...and an imprudent scamp for vilifying the U of U!
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Oct 7, 2012 - 05:12pm PT
Who here remembers that tissy-fit that bruelag pitched when she was being asked to actually put in some time working in exchange for a free campsite in our wonderful Yosemite during one of the better weeks of climbing season….

He led a one man uprising and still people reported having fun without his beer swilling insignificance being present for the facelift.

philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 7, 2012 - 05:42pm PT
Hypocrites throw the best hissy fits.
Brandon-

climber
The Granite State.
Oct 7, 2012 - 05:49pm PT
Bluering, you have 51 posts since Friday.

Way to go!!!!
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Oct 7, 2012 - 06:05pm PT
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2012 - 06:14pm PT
Who here remembers that tissy-fit that bruelag pitched when she was being asked to actually put in some time working in exchange for a free campsite in our wonderful Yosemite during one of the better weeks of climbing season….

He led a one man uprising and still people reported having fun without his beer swilling insignificance being present for the facelift.

Um, I pick up garbage every time I'm in the Valley, whether it's a Facelift or not. And when I do I don't wear a silly orange vest and carry a pussy-stick.

When I cook food for climbers I do not ask for money, and anything they voluntarily contribute I do not keep, I donate it to Yeager.

You are a mean, hateful specimen, Jingy. You have some f*#king issues, bra!

People like you who cannot discuss real issues always fall back to personal attacks because that's all you got. It shows you for who you are. You claim to be so sensitive, but you're rotten inside with hatred.

I pity you're ilk. May God show you what compassion and service really is one day.
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Oct 7, 2012 - 06:15pm PT
"And they will take every advantage afforded them, legally, in the tax-code. If they don't, they should have the book thrown at them, just like you/me."

Yeah, that works.

Fine principle, but you know as well as anyone that the well-moneyed continue to be quite successful in bending the political, legal and legislative process to their advantage. Don't like a law? Send in your army of lobbyists to change it.
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 7, 2012 - 06:16pm PT
Sounds more like you are describing my brother not Jingy.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2012 - 06:18pm PT
Who here remembers that tissy-fit that bruelag pitched when she was being asked to actually put in some time working in exchange for a free campsite in our wonderful Yosemite during one of the better weeks of climbing season….

He led a one man uprising and still people reported having fun without his beer swilling insignificance being present for the facelift.

Um, I pick up garbage every time I'm in the Valley, whether it's a Facelift or not. And when I do I don't wear a silly orange vest and carry a pussy-stick.

When I cook food for climbers I do not ask for money, and anything they voluntarily contribute I do not keep, I donate it to Yeager.

You are a mean, hateful specimen, Jingy. You have some f*#king issues, bra!

People like you who cannot discuss real issues always fall back to personal attacks because that's all you got. It shows you for who you are. You claim to be so sensitive, but you're rotten inside with hatred.

I pity you're ilk. May God show you what compassion and service really is one day.

apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Oct 7, 2012 - 06:20pm PT
"People like you who cannot discuss real issues always fall back to personal attacks..."

Credit: apogee
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 7, 2012 - 06:22pm PT
Sure deal Farkook. Come on over and I will show you my taxes. I'm waiting.


Hahaha Stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Does using dozens of exclamation points make you think you are more correct?????????????????????
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 7, 2012 - 06:28pm PT
Hey Frook, it is my republican brother who is unemployed and just had a free gastric reduction surgery care of Medicaid. I own my company and work full time.
What do you do. Certainly not add value to this site.
Farouk

Boulder climber
Sylvan Grove
Oct 7, 2012 - 06:32pm PT
I own my company and work full time.

Then why do you hide income to reduce taxes????????????????????????????????????
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 7, 2012 - 06:36pm PT
You useless troll. How can you possibly say that? You know nothing! And you are doing a superb job of presenting yourself the new #1 d#@&%enozzle of SuperTopo.
Keep in mind trolling d#@&%enozzles have a short shelf life here.
Farouk

Boulder climber
Sylvan Grove
Oct 7, 2012 - 06:37pm PT
No trolling here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How about you come clean??????????????????????????
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 7, 2012 - 06:39pm PT
How about you tell us who you are so everyone can grasp why you are such a pathetic leg humper?
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 7, 2012 - 06:50pm PT
So you are a deranged mad man then. Seek help before it is too late.
Your Obama Derangement Syndrome kills you after he is reelected.
You are disgraceful.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Oct 7, 2012 - 07:01pm PT
Do you have Obama Derangement Syndrome?


World renowned psychologist Dr. Christopher Zimmermann has developed a classification scheme for people who suffer from ODS.



Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) Classification Scheme




Stage 1 Obama Derangement Syndrome
Early symptoms include subtle, low level criticisms of Obama's "leadership" abilities. A simple understanding of separation of powers and what Obama can/can not do is enough to reverse most ailments.

Stage 2 Obama Derangement Syndrome
At this stage, attacks on the President begin to take on a nonsensical element such as criticism of Obama playing Golf, taking a vacation with his family, or eating mustard on his hamburger. The tone used by stage 2 sufferers mimics that of a gossip tabloid or an unhappy teenager's blog.

Stage 3 Obama Derangement Syndrome
As the disease progresses, deeply held anger, resentment, and fear manifests itself. Those afflicted with ODS-3 are unable to call the President by his name. They use incendiary monikers such as Barry, Obummer, Zero. The derangement begins to branch out to Obama's family. Even mentioning Michelle Obama's campaign to encourage healthy lifestyles is enough to cause hysterical fits of rage.

Stage 4 Obama Derangement Syndrome
Opposition to Obama becomes not just predictable, but a force of habit. Those afflicted use phrases like, "Anyone but Obama." The diseased begin to take any position, so long as it is not Obama's position. They begin to mock ideas like "hope" and "change" as naive, simply because Obama embodies them.


Stage 5 Obama Derangement Syndrome
As stage 5 ODS sets in, the assaults on the President's character begin to imply he is evil at his core. The development of conspiracies that suggest Obama is knowingly executing an agenda that will harm America are commonplace. Questions like, "Is Obama A Bigger Threat Than Al Qaeda?" and "Obama: A Radical Leftist Who Seeks To Dismantle Capitalism?" are common place.

Stage 6 Obama Derangement Syndrome
This stage is mostly reserved for birthers and bigots. People who have developed ODS-6 are offended by Barack Obama's very existence. The subtle racial undertones, kept concealed in the previous stages of the disease, can no longer be contained. They find it impossible to believe that a black man could be elected President of "their" country, despite the overwhelming evidence that the President was born in America.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Oct 7, 2012 - 07:06pm PT


This is the earliest-known written appearance of the word "freedom" (amagi), or "liberty." It is taken from a clay document written about 2300 B.C. in the Sumerian city-state of Lagash.

"Progressives" are in reality neo-feudalists tat believe that your rights are a product of the benevolence of the state and not your birthright.
climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Oct 7, 2012 - 07:07pm PT
Oi TGT

Evil has infested your mind

you speak in orwellian

Dems and reps are the same thing

Representatives of EVil and not by any means servants of the people
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Oct 7, 2012 - 07:07pm PT
That is some funny shite, Norton. It would be funnier if it wasn't so close to reality....
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 7, 2012 - 07:08pm PT
Do you suppose he chews Doublemint gum?
So he can keep that double speak fresh breath.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Oct 7, 2012 - 07:49pm PT
SENSATIONAL, EXQUISITE, REMARKABLE, INTRIGUING, THOUGHT-PROVOKING INSPIRATIONAL!
These are adjectives that I would not use to describe your last day of posts.
What a waste of electricity! you should all unplug your computers and go look in the mirror!

Blue I chimed in to this thread because it seemed like you were promoting intelligent correspondence. But I see now you are no different than the rest of these _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
You should be ashamed of your self and delete this thread!

I wish we could put a fence down the middle of America. And put all the Democrats on one side and Republicans on the other. And see who's world would prosper.

Jus Nauseous
BB
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Oct 7, 2012 - 07:52pm PT
Socalismo and the "Progressives" once again can not suppress the in born drive toward freedom!


http://www.abc.es/20121008/internacional/abci-primeros-sondeos-venezuela-201210080050.html

I guess they'll have to kill him.

Farouk

Boulder climber
Sylvan Grove
Oct 7, 2012 - 07:59pm PT
Greetings from a Fellow SuperTopo Member!

This message has been sent from a fellow registered SuperTopo climbing member to you.

The message is:
Then shut your stupid pie hole Farouk. You're annoying and irrational.
(no exclamation marks needed)

Sent by: MudPuppy

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Left wing hate oozes out of the forum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Greetings from a Fellow SuperTopo Member!
This message has been sent from a fellow registered SuperTopo climbing member to you.

The message is:
F*#k you you republicunt! F*#king idiot!
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Oct 7, 2012 - 08:12pm PT
Blew - Just getting a better idea of the type of conservatism you are trying to restore with this thread. I guess what I meant was "what if we were all like this type of conservative:
No community ethic
Sherks responsibility for any type of repayment (time spent volunteering) for a handout (free campsite)… (sounds just like what I hear the conservative right claiming the homeless left to be)

This, I say, goes hand in hand with your "real issues" discussion…. Leading by example you say, or maybe you haven't said that… I might have confused you with another well minded keeper of common sense.

People like you who cannot discuss real issues always fall back to hoping God will show the way to attacks because that's all you got. It shows you for who you are. You claim to be so sensitive, but you're rotten inside with hatred.

I pity you're ilk. May God show you what compassion and service really is one day.


Oh yeah,…… Not pointing out your childish hypocritical reactions with regards to your true feelings about being asked to put in some work in exchange for a free campsite is not being compassionate.

Sun Tsu in the "Art of War" - Know Your Enemy








bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA

Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2012 - 03:14pm PT
Who here remembers that tissy-fit that bruelag pitched when she was being asked to actually put in some time working in exchange for a free campsite in our wonderful Yosemite during one of the better weeks of climbing season….

He led a one man uprising and still people reported having fun without his beer swilling insignificance being present for the facelift.

Um, I pick up garbage every time I'm in the Valley, whether it's a Facelift or not. And when I do I don't wear a silly orange vest and carry a pussy-stick.

When I cook food for climbers I do not ask for money, and anything they voluntarily contribute I do not keep, I donate it to Yeager.

You are a mean, hateful specimen, Jingy. You have some f*#king issues, bra!

People like you who cannot discuss real issues always fall back to personal attacks because that's all you got. It shows you for who you are. You claim to be so sensitive, but you're rotten inside with hatred.

I pity you're ilk. May God show you what compassion and service really is one day.









bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA

Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2012 - 03:18pm PT
Who here remembers that tissy-fit that bruelag pitched when she was being asked to actually put in some time working in exchange for a free campsite in our wonderful Yosemite during one of the better weeks of climbing season….

He led a one man uprising and still people reported having fun without his beer swilling insignificance being present for the facelift.

Um, I pick up garbage every time I'm in the Valley, whether it's a Facelift or not. And when I do I don't wear a silly orange vest and carry a pussy-stick.

When I cook food for climbers I do not ask for money, and anything they voluntarily contribute I do not keep, I donate it to Yeager.

You are a mean, hateful specimen, Jingy. You have some f*#king issues, bra!

People like you who cannot discuss real issues always fall back to personal attacks because that's all you got. It shows you for who you are. You claim to be so sensitive, but you're rotten inside with hatred.

I pity you're ilk. May God show you what compassion and service really is one day.


Was it really necessary to post this drivel twice?


(Dr.F Side Note:
That's very jesus like of you
You are such a problem solver

Isn't that ironical. Here I've got the impression that BLOWBLOCKER was a holy roller, and then I read this shameful shit… Just too funny.)


philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 7, 2012 - 08:17pm PT
Any wonder you get those kind of PMs?
Jennie

Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
Oct 7, 2012 - 08:47pm PT
I wish we could put a fence down the middle of America. And put all the Democrats on one side and Republicans on the other. And see who's world would prosper.



Neither would prosper BLUEBLOCKR. Opposition is a function of balance in the imperfect political world as it is in the physical.

Republicans or Democrats quarantined from one another.. would themselves bifurcate into bitterly contending factions.


The Menshevik and Bolsheviks became contending factions within the Russian Social-Democratic Workers’ Party. When the Mensheviks were expelled, Bolshevism , as a term,
became obsolete... but the splits didn't end. Stalin's iron despotism ultimately moderated the wrangling.

As long as people desire to compete and contend...they will sow dessension and sever into factions striving with one another.
Ricky

climber
Sometimes LA
Oct 7, 2012 - 08:52pm PT
I wish we could put a fence down the middle of America. And put all the Democrats on one side and Republicans on the other. And see who's world would prosper.




Neither would prosper BLUEBLOCKR. Opposition is a function of balance in the imperfect political world as it is in the physical.

Republicans or Democrats quarantined from one another.. would themselves bifurcate into bitterly contending factions.


The Menshevik and Bolsheviks became contending factions within the Russian Social-Democratic Workers’ Party. When the Mensheviks were expelled, Bolshevism , as a term,
became obsolete... but the splits didn't end. Stalin's iron despotism ultimately moderated the wrangling.

As long as people desire to compete and contend...they will sow dessension and sever into factions striving with one another.


Yeah, I'm sure that's what he was considering.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2012 - 08:59pm PT
Blue I chimed in to this thread because it seemed like you were promoting intelligent correspondence. But I see now you are no different than the rest of these _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
You should be ashamed of your self and delete this thread!

I attempt to have dialogue, Johnson, but the bastards always devolve the conversation. I laid out my clear points to fix what is wrong. Yet people just wanna say how bad this/that is without offering ideas of their own. Productive, thoughtful ideas.

Do not put me in their league! I try to promote thoughtful discourse. They always devolve the debate into name-calling.

Go back and see how this thread started. And when I came back to it yesterday. Look how it devolves, always.

EDIT:
Neither would prosper BLUEBLOCKR. Opposition is a function of balance in the imperfect political world as it is in the physical.

Republicans or Democrats quarantined from one another.. would themselves bifurcate into bitterly contending factions.


The Menshevik and Bolsheviks became contending factions within the Russian Social-Democratic Workers’ Party. When the Mensheviks were expelled, Bolshevism , as a term,
became obsolete... but the splits didn't end. Stalin's iron despotism ultimately moderated the wrangling.

As long as people desire to compete and contend...they will sow dessension and sever into factions striving with one another.


You're a dreamy gal, Jennie. What is your solution? I'm curious to hear.
Ricky

climber
Sometimes LA
Oct 7, 2012 - 09:00pm PT

Dude, you thought Mexico was in South America. Created a whole thread about it.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2012 - 09:05pm PT
Dude, you thought Mexico was in South America. Created a whole thread about it.


Just like I said women are nothing more than c#m-catchers, right? You can perpetuate lies, but the facts do not support them.

Again. No conversation, just attempts at demeaning me personally.
Ricky

climber
Sometimes LA
Oct 7, 2012 - 09:09pm PT

Deleted that little embarrassment did you?

And it's not a matter of demeaning you, that's your job. Rather it's a matter of standing.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2012 - 09:13pm PT

Deleted that little embarrassment did you?
Nope. I stand by all my comments. You guys just love to remove them from their original context.

Nice try. Go find the comments, I never deleted them. Post them up, a-hole! I got nothing to hide.
Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
Oct 7, 2012 - 09:17pm PT
Mexicans are NORTH AMERICANS. Everyone in South America refers to them that way.
Ricky

climber
Sometimes LA
Oct 7, 2012 - 09:20pm PT

He's right. Document the atrocities.

http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum/1260099/Mexico-Drug-Wars-ot

This is getting nasty lately. The military in Mexico has stepped up (finally) and started to target the more heavily armed Zeta gangs and others.

Trust me when I tell you it's nasty...I'll post links. Some are NOT cool for the faint of heart. I'll give warnings before those links.

And before everyone starts saying, "just legalize pot, man!", it goes way deeper than that. Think of drugs as just one aspect of their business. The ARE the South American mafia, quite literally.

Probably better deleating it.
Jennie

Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
Oct 7, 2012 - 09:42pm PT
What is your solution? I'm curious to hear.


Thanks, Blue...I'm certain most aren't interested in my solutions, though.

Most of us come to political dialogue to strive and jostle ...more than find solutions. Not indicting you more than other members ...or myself.

Given the spirit of contention and choosing up sides, here...the closest we come to accord is "assent divided by two."
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Oct 7, 2012 - 09:43pm PT
Anyone who can say they "stand by their words" should be subjected to reading them again and again….

AC, I don't think you understand the types that are crossing our border other than the ones 'doing the work Americans won't do".

These are bad guyz. You almost need special ops guys down there to dominate their skills. They have .50 sniper rifles, man! That's about a mile accuracy if you relatively trained on it.

 This statement, to me, indicates that blow understands the types that are crossing our border who are not "doing the work Americans won't do"….

Clearly blow is a sleeper cell for the SOUTH AMERICAN MAFIA (aka Mexican cartels)
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2012 - 11:09pm PT
Most of us come to political dialogue to strive and jostle ...more than find solutions. Not indicting you more than other members ...or myself.

Given the spirit of contention and choosing up sides, here...the closest we come to accord is "assent divided by two."


Hmmm...

Isn't assent divided by 2 an oxymoron? Or is that yer point? Agreement divided by 2 ends is disagreement. And thus, where we are.

You stir the pot....

EDIT:

This statement, to me, indicates that blow understands the types that are crossing our border who are not "doing the work Americans won't do"….

Fast and Furious, bra! Hey Obama, you built that!!!!
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 7, 2012 - 11:16pm PT
At least she hasn't pooped in the punch bowl.
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Oct 8, 2012 - 01:28am PT
"I attempt to have dialogue, Johnson, but the bastards always devolve the conversation. "

Yeah, you've pretty much sh#t this bed, haven't you?

Maybe it's time to move on.
Bruce Morris

Social climber
Belmont, California
Oct 8, 2012 - 01:57am PT
Return to Traditional Conservative Values -

Louis XIV

King George III

Talleyrand

Edmund Burke

Senator John C. Calhoun

Dr Joseph Goebbels
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 8, 2012 - 02:03am PT

Fast and Furious, bra! Hey Obama, you built that!!!!

Hey Bra, wrong again. Fast & Furious was a Bushit plan that Obama inherited.
Jolly Roger

Trad climber
here and there
Oct 8, 2012 - 09:40am PT
Bernie Sanders explains our situation well.

http://www.upworthy.com/how-the-hell-did-wall-street-get-an-extra-16-trillion-bernie-sanders-explains

I agree with this. If Obama would make it his point to tax the hell out of the rich, and collect on all the profiteers, he'd have my vote.

I can not in good faith vote for either of the two candidates,

But Bernie would get my vote.