Reader comments
Readers' forum: We need a real conservative
132 comments | Read story
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next >
I'm Voting Liberal this year | 4:20 p.m. March 3, 2008
We can get rid of the death tax where those with over 5 million to leave their
kids don't have to pay taxes on this anymore, or we can lower taxes on the
middle class who didn't get the 2 million dollar a year bonuses when the
company stock went up, or the golden paraschuit to pay them as they went out the
door after doing a bad job.
Lets see, hmmm, decisions decisions this is really a tough decision. I'm voting liberal this year.
Lets see, hmmm, decisions decisions this is really a tough decision. I'm voting liberal this year.
Poor pay more than fair share | 4:26 p.m. March 3, 2008
The rich like to talk about a flat tax, I would say that the poor are already
giving more than their share. Every time there is a war it is their kids who
are at risk of being caught by the shinny bait of sign on bonuses or job
training then end up dying or getting maimed for life.
Conservatism, you don't hold all the answers to how to properly run a country, so don't pretend that you do.
Conservatism, you don't hold all the answers to how to properly run a country, so don't pretend that you do.
Comments continue below
liberal means an open mind | 4:32 p.m. March 3, 2008
Let me see if I understand this -
It's either conservatism or socialism?
Isn't that a bit, er, ah, ... black and white?
Are conservatives really THAT black and white in their deductive reasoning process? Or is the whole thing just a weird Rush O'Hannity political power game?
It's either conservatism or socialism?
Isn't that a bit, er, ah, ... black and white?
Are conservatives really THAT black and white in their deductive reasoning process? Or is the whole thing just a weird Rush O'Hannity political power game?
Thomas | 4:37 p.m. March 3, 2008
I don't stay up night worrying that the super-rich are paying too much in
taxes. I do worry that Democrats' definition of "rich" tends to
trickle down onto the heads of plenty of objectively non-rich people.
The point is that anyone who argues the "rich" don't pay their fair share of taxes in America needs to crunch some actual numbers. The simple fact is that most of the federal government's non-Social Security revenues* come from corporate taxes and taxes on the wealthy -- and the Internal Revenue Code has actually gotten *more* progressive since the Bush tax cuts, not less. (Really. The wealthy are paying a *greater* percentage of total tax revenues now than they were in 2001.)
The problem with this whole argument is that "fair share" is a moving target. As long as some people in America manage to make a lot of money, there will be Progressives to argue that they ought to be taxed more -- whether the top rate is 35%, 39%, or 50%.
The point is that anyone who argues the "rich" don't pay their fair share of taxes in America needs to crunch some actual numbers. The simple fact is that most of the federal government's non-Social Security revenues* come from corporate taxes and taxes on the wealthy -- and the Internal Revenue Code has actually gotten *more* progressive since the Bush tax cuts, not less. (Really. The wealthy are paying a *greater* percentage of total tax revenues now than they were in 2001.)
The problem with this whole argument is that "fair share" is a moving target. As long as some people in America manage to make a lot of money, there will be Progressives to argue that they ought to be taxed more -- whether the top rate is 35%, 39%, or 50%.
Thomas | 4:49 p.m. March 3, 2008
Willie -- No serious scholar accepts those "14 points" (written by a
left-wing novelist with no academic credentials whatsoever) as providing any
useful description of the phenomenon of fascism.
Not only that, they're simply inaccurate. Of the major fascist ideologies of the 20th century, the top two contenders -- the Italian and German variants -- were aggressively opposed to the "slave mentality" of Christianity. The only fascist states that weren't actually opposed to religion would be Spain, Romania, and (arguably) Woodrow Wilson's World War I-era America.
If the "consensus" of climatologists is sufficient to tell us what to believe about global warming, you guys will have to accept the consensus of academic political scientists about what fascism is. Short version: it's not *your* definition, and "corporatism" doesn't mean what you think it means.
Not only that, they're simply inaccurate. Of the major fascist ideologies of the 20th century, the top two contenders -- the Italian and German variants -- were aggressively opposed to the "slave mentality" of Christianity. The only fascist states that weren't actually opposed to religion would be Spain, Romania, and (arguably) Woodrow Wilson's World War I-era America.
If the "consensus" of climatologists is sufficient to tell us what to believe about global warming, you guys will have to accept the consensus of academic political scientists about what fascism is. Short version: it's not *your* definition, and "corporatism" doesn't mean what you think it means.
Thomas | 4:49 p.m. March 3, 2008
"Too busy": Touchy, aren't we?
Regarding my ignorance of history, I'll stack my undergraduate degree against whatever Howard Zinn book you got your pseudohistory from.
The labor movement in the United States got plenty violent. I don't want to set up another straw man here, but by leaving out so much of the context, you're implying that the National Guard was routinely called out purely in the interest of industrialists to force striking workers back to their sweatshops or whatever. Of course, you're leaving out the murders of "scabs," the dynamiting of factories and mines, and all the other extralegal activities of the strikers.
The job of the government is to maintain public order. When the threat to public order consists of strikers forcibly occupying (or destroying) someone else's property, that mandate also happens to serve the interests of the property owner. But that doesn't mean the government is taking sides; it means it's doing its job.
Regarding my ignorance of history, I'll stack my undergraduate degree against whatever Howard Zinn book you got your pseudohistory from.
The labor movement in the United States got plenty violent. I don't want to set up another straw man here, but by leaving out so much of the context, you're implying that the National Guard was routinely called out purely in the interest of industrialists to force striking workers back to their sweatshops or whatever. Of course, you're leaving out the murders of "scabs," the dynamiting of factories and mines, and all the other extralegal activities of the strikers.
The job of the government is to maintain public order. When the threat to public order consists of strikers forcibly occupying (or destroying) someone else's property, that mandate also happens to serve the interests of the property owner. But that doesn't mean the government is taking sides; it means it's doing its job.
Anonymous | 5:02 p.m. March 3, 2008
Thomas -
Speak for yourself.
The 14 points of fascism are real, continue to be scrutinized, studied and applied if necessary to compare our existing form of government (that the conservatives have put into place for the last 8 years) to the very real threat of this insidious Machiavellian type of government we have today.
Whether you accept it or not.
Speak for yourself.
The 14 points of fascism are real, continue to be scrutinized, studied and applied if necessary to compare our existing form of government (that the conservatives have put into place for the last 8 years) to the very real threat of this insidious Machiavellian type of government we have today.
Whether you accept it or not.
What is a real conservative? | 5:03 p.m. March 3, 2008
I find it interesting that even our resident Neocon Thomas refuses to define
what "a real conservative" is.
And these people, who shout "Right is right!" (whatever THAT is supposed to mean) cannot even come to a simple agreement as to what they are and what they stand for.
And these people, who shout "Right is right!" (whatever THAT is supposed to mean) cannot even come to a simple agreement as to what they are and what they stand for.
Which company owned them? | 5:28 p.m. March 3, 2008
Thomas (4:49 p.m.): "Too busy": Touchy, aren't we? Regarding my
ignorance of history, I'll stack my undergraduate degree against whatever
Howard Zinn book you got your pseudohistory from." I guess my Masters in
History means nothing to a know it all voter who loves to insult people. Nothing
I said was pseudohistory but you probably don't even know what the term
means.
You write, "The labor movement in the United States got plenty violent...Of course, you're leaving out the murders of "scabs," the dynamiting of factories and mines, and all the other extralegal activities of the strikers." There was never any verifiable proof that the peaceful strikers who were killed were involved in those incidents so they have no bearing on the killing of innocent men, women and children who were striking peacefully.
Furthermore, if you were paid in money that could only be spent in the company town and not even in the next town you might resort to violence too because it was virtual slavery where you continued working for the company or leave totally destitute. Of course it was the strikers who should get off the property and find work in another company town.
You write, "The labor movement in the United States got plenty violent...Of course, you're leaving out the murders of "scabs," the dynamiting of factories and mines, and all the other extralegal activities of the strikers." There was never any verifiable proof that the peaceful strikers who were killed were involved in those incidents so they have no bearing on the killing of innocent men, women and children who were striking peacefully.
Furthermore, if you were paid in money that could only be spent in the company town and not even in the next town you might resort to violence too because it was virtual slavery where you continued working for the company or leave totally destitute. Of course it was the strikers who should get off the property and find work in another company town.
Thomas | 5:29 p.m. March 3, 2008
Sorry, "What," I didn't realize anyone was asking *me* that
question.
I'd define an American conservative as a person who believes the classical liberal ideals of the American founding to be worth conserving. Those include limited government, free enterprise, religious tolerance coupled with respect for religion, and a willingness to learn from tradition, even as we progress in understanding and adapt to new circumstances.
I'd add a general belief that America is, on balance, a positive force in world history, and a *conditional* willingness to take one's own country's side in an international quarrel.
Some liberals might argue that some policies favored by people calling themselves conservative aren't consistent with these ideals. Sometimes they have a point, and sometimes not.
It's not my place here to define "what liberals believe," but I think I can fairly state that modern American liberalism traces its most direct ancestry to the Progressive movement. That movement was characterized by collectivism (the "common good" as opposed to the individual), a discomfort with the supposed corruption of parliamentary democracy and a tendency to substitute the decisions of judges and technocrats, and a general sense that the ideals of the Founding were outdated and should be replaced.
I'd define an American conservative as a person who believes the classical liberal ideals of the American founding to be worth conserving. Those include limited government, free enterprise, religious tolerance coupled with respect for religion, and a willingness to learn from tradition, even as we progress in understanding and adapt to new circumstances.
I'd add a general belief that America is, on balance, a positive force in world history, and a *conditional* willingness to take one's own country's side in an international quarrel.
Some liberals might argue that some policies favored by people calling themselves conservative aren't consistent with these ideals. Sometimes they have a point, and sometimes not.
It's not my place here to define "what liberals believe," but I think I can fairly state that modern American liberalism traces its most direct ancestry to the Progressive movement. That movement was characterized by collectivism (the "common good" as opposed to the individual), a discomfort with the supposed corruption of parliamentary democracy and a tendency to substitute the decisions of judges and technocrats, and a general sense that the ideals of the Founding were outdated and should be replaced.
Thomas | 5:37 p.m. March 3, 2008
Well, Anon 3:09, I guess I'd say I'm rich enough for Democrats to tax
me like a rich person, but not rich enough to actually live like one. You
wouldn't believe the cost of living down here.
I'd love to be as rich as John Kerry, but I could never get the hang of hooking up with rich socialites. I'd love to be as rich as John Edwards, but I could never stifle my conscience long enough to extort money with junk science. I'd love to be as rich as Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, but frankly I've never been able to figure out exactly how those kids made their money. (Something about cattle futures, I understand.)
Who I worship is my own business, but I'll confide that He and I like to make fun of people who think sarcasm is an effective substitute* for argument.
*As opposed to a useful seasoning, which however I probably overuse myself.
I'd love to be as rich as John Kerry, but I could never get the hang of hooking up with rich socialites. I'd love to be as rich as John Edwards, but I could never stifle my conscience long enough to extort money with junk science. I'd love to be as rich as Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, but frankly I've never been able to figure out exactly how those kids made their money. (Something about cattle futures, I understand.)
Who I worship is my own business, but I'll confide that He and I like to make fun of people who think sarcasm is an effective substitute* for argument.
*As opposed to a useful seasoning, which however I probably overuse myself.
Real Conservative | 5:40 p.m. March 3, 2008
It's sad to read so much misinformation about conservatism. It obviously
comes from the 21 to 45 age group who haven't been required to learn
anything about their constitution in school or what freedoms are really about.
None of you Pro-socialists can name one right, without lying, that has been
taken from us by President Bush. Liberals and Socialist are in love with
themselves and the idea of telling others what size toilet they can use, what
type of light bulb should be used, what kind of car you should drive, what kinds
of food you shouldn't eat, what foods should be taxed to help eliminate
them. Liberals are ones who want it all without doing anything for it, period.
I've never seen a liberal, socialist loving person who has been caring or
honest with anyone. Always, what's in it for me and, oh, yes, I'm
going to use your money to buy me what I want and what all of my friends want.
No different that LBJ's Great Society: "We will take (rob) from the
rich and give to the poor." Well New Orleans is a marvelous example of
Socialism in this country. The worst of the worst.
Thomas | 5:44 p.m. March 3, 2008
Anon 5:02, if you can explain to me why Mr. Laurence Britt's definition of
"fascism" ought to be given precedence over those of the actual
credentialed political scientists' definition, I'll *maybe* be give
that little propagandistic gem a morsel of thought.
Until then, color me unimpressed with a nobody's scribblings in an obscure left-wing rag, no matter how many clueless lefties go nuts over the silly thing (in the process erroneously referring to its author as a poli-sci Ph.D.)
Until then, color me unimpressed with a nobody's scribblings in an obscure left-wing rag, no matter how many clueless lefties go nuts over the silly thing (in the process erroneously referring to its author as a poli-sci Ph.D.)
Anonymous | 6:17 p.m. March 3, 2008
Sorry Thomas,
The founding fathers owned slaves. That's complete ownership of fellow human beings. This idoology continues today, only its called conservatism. These deluded saps believe they have a God-given right to do whatever they want under the guise that it is the morally right thing to do.
Throw in the race card and you have the same situation that existed during the times when The 3rd Reich ruled.
The founding fathers owned slaves. That's complete ownership of fellow human beings. This idoology continues today, only its called conservatism. These deluded saps believe they have a God-given right to do whatever they want under the guise that it is the morally right thing to do.
Throw in the race card and you have the same situation that existed during the times when The 3rd Reich ruled.
Thomas | 6:13 p.m. March 3, 2008
"Too busy," I'm always happy to discuss history with someone who
actually cares about it. Unfortunately, I can't discuss the "innocent
strikers" you're you've mentioned, because I don't know
which strike you have in mind. Pullman? Homestead? Colorado mines? The
Pennsylvania coal strike Teddy Roosevelt got arbitrated?
None of those strikes could be *remotely* described as peaceful. In many cases, the people died weren't directly involved in violence one way or the other. But you seem to be trying to craft a kind of martyrdom narrative, with perfectly peaceful strikers being shot down without provocation. That's simply not the kind of narrative that a true historian would give of what actually happened.
The American labor movement accomplished much that was desperately needed. But its violent streak, which continues to the present (and with which I am personally acquainted) can't be ignored without turning a narrative into -- yes -- pseudohistory.
None of those strikes could be *remotely* described as peaceful. In many cases, the people died weren't directly involved in violence one way or the other. But you seem to be trying to craft a kind of martyrdom narrative, with perfectly peaceful strikers being shot down without provocation. That's simply not the kind of narrative that a true historian would give of what actually happened.
The American labor movement accomplished much that was desperately needed. But its violent streak, which continues to the present (and with which I am personally acquainted) can't be ignored without turning a narrative into -- yes -- pseudohistory.
Anonymous | 6:15 p.m. March 3, 2008
Goldwater Conservatism
Reagan Conservatism
John Birch Society Conservatism
Rush O'Hannity Conservatism
The poor souls calling themselves conservatives are having an obvious identity crisis - as they should
I certainly wouldn't want to live that way.
Reagan Conservatism
John Birch Society Conservatism
Rush O'Hannity Conservatism
The poor souls calling themselves conservatives are having an obvious identity crisis - as they should
I certainly wouldn't want to live that way.
Anonymous | 6:18 p.m. March 3, 2008
Note once again, that not even our resident Neocon, Thomas has offered to define
just what a "real conservative is" other than his definition of what a
liberal is.
ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
re: Real Conservative | 6:30 p.m. March 3, 2008
I don't understand your comment. You need to get out and meet more people.
Spend my money on war, but not t | 6:37 p.m. March 3, 2008
To Real Conservatives: You don't speak for the U.S. Constitution or what it
means. Nor do you have any idea as to what freedom means and why those who
continue to defend our freedoms from our neighbors are willing to do so.
Furthermore, the Constitution isn't the end all of the debate over our
rights now than it was at the time.
But of course we have the right to vote. We get to debate on an online forum, visit a few candidates website and go to Wikipedia to read about them and this is the freedom of self-government. We are too afraid to debate the merits of our Constitution, or our system of government.
Conservatives vote for George W. Bush and agree with him that we should spend money on a war that liberals don't agree with and we are supposed to pay taxes to support a war that we don't want but the poor conservatives gets upset when us liberals want to spend their money on something else but they and their leader George and his ordinary wife Laura want to send our sons and daughters to die for them and spend our money to do so.
But of course we have the right to vote. We get to debate on an online forum, visit a few candidates website and go to Wikipedia to read about them and this is the freedom of self-government. We are too afraid to debate the merits of our Constitution, or our system of government.
Conservatives vote for George W. Bush and agree with him that we should spend money on a war that liberals don't agree with and we are supposed to pay taxes to support a war that we don't want but the poor conservatives gets upset when us liberals want to spend their money on something else but they and their leader George and his ordinary wife Laura want to send our sons and daughters to die for them and spend our money to do so.
Tax to pay for their immoral war | 6:36 p.m. March 3, 2008
To Anonymous (6:17 p.m.): It's not a shock that the Founding Fathers owned
slaves since most of them were petty men who feared the people and wrote a
Constitution that would protect the "opulent from the majority." Now
we are in a war that everyone is asked to pay for and its the conservatives war
and they tax us to pay for it and then when we want to tax them to pay for
universal health care these evil people say "you don't have the right
to take our money to pay for health care but we have the right to take your
money to pay for the deaths of your children who fight for this country."
Thomas | 9:58 p.m. March 3, 2008
Anon, I gently refer you to my first paragraph. Read it again, calmly. (Post
at 5:29.)
The 6:17 and 6:36 posts illustrate another good definition between the left/right distinction: Leftists -- or at least the variant on display there -- believe America is rotten at its foundation, while conservatives don't.
The 6:17 and 6:36 posts illustrate another good definition between the left/right distinction: Leftists -- or at least the variant on display there -- believe America is rotten at its foundation, while conservatives don't.
Bubba | 10:32 p.m. March 3, 2008
Problem is, when we get a "real conservative", like Senator Buttars,
the media bashes them to death. Do you really think all of this was about a
comment in the heat of a senate debate about an ugly,dark, black baby (metaphor
for the bill) that would have harmed his district? Or do you think that he was
crucified for upholding traditional values...being anti-gay, against abortion,
taking on judicial activism like Judge Pullan etc...all sacred cows of liberals?
Ancient Korean proverb...the nail that sticks up gets hammered down.
Anonymous | 12:03 a.m. March 4, 2008
Thomas -
"...leftists believe America is rotten at its foundation..."
Typical far-right extremism. Take all info and push it way past a realistic point for propagandizing purposes.
"...leftists believe America is rotten at its foundation..."
Typical far-right extremism. Take all info and push it way past a realistic point for propagandizing purposes.
no life for me | 6:31 a.m. March 4, 2008
Conservatives neurotically resist the natural and inevitable - change.
In their paranoia of things different than accustomed to, ie. "staying the course," "nothing needs fixing," their inactivity and sins of ommission become part of the larger problem.
I would not want to live a life like that.
In their paranoia of things different than accustomed to, ie. "staying the course," "nothing needs fixing," their inactivity and sins of ommission become part of the larger problem.
I would not want to live a life like that.
Thomas | 10:05 a.m. March 4, 2008
"most of [the Founders] were petty men who feared the people and wrote a
Constitution that would "protect the opulent from the majority."
Anon, call me a typical far-right extremist if you want, but I think it's perfectly fair to understand the above quote as reflecting a conviction that the American founding was fundamentally corrupt. There are at least *some* leftists who take that extreme view, as plainly shown above.
You, Sir, are extraordinarily fixed in your thinking, and love to lump all conservatives into a bogeyman image largely of your own construction. American conservatives have never been reflexively opposed to *all* change, which would be absurd. We, however, give at least *some* consideration to the inherited institutions of the past, rather than taking it upon ourselves to completely reinvent the wheel.
But you illustrate another (general) distinction between progressives and conservatives: Progressives join with Hegel (and Marx) in believing in History with a capital "H" -- the idea that history unfolds according to irresistible laws. (They're similar to Calvinist Protestants in this regard.) Conservatives generally believe that we have the power to affect how civilization develops, and choose between the various competing options for change.
Anon, call me a typical far-right extremist if you want, but I think it's perfectly fair to understand the above quote as reflecting a conviction that the American founding was fundamentally corrupt. There are at least *some* leftists who take that extreme view, as plainly shown above.
You, Sir, are extraordinarily fixed in your thinking, and love to lump all conservatives into a bogeyman image largely of your own construction. American conservatives have never been reflexively opposed to *all* change, which would be absurd. We, however, give at least *some* consideration to the inherited institutions of the past, rather than taking it upon ourselves to completely reinvent the wheel.
But you illustrate another (general) distinction between progressives and conservatives: Progressives join with Hegel (and Marx) in believing in History with a capital "H" -- the idea that history unfolds according to irresistible laws. (They're similar to Calvinist Protestants in this regard.) Conservatives generally believe that we have the power to affect how civilization develops, and choose between the various competing options for change.
Bubba | 11:42 a.m. March 4, 2008
One of the early comments got me laughing.
"We need to be free again" When were we sold into slavery?
The only change that will be left is in some peoples pockets if the liberal left has their way and that might even be in jeopardy.
The Democrats and Republicans are history. It's the conversatives vs the liberals.
"We need to be free again" When were we sold into slavery?
The only change that will be left is in some peoples pockets if the liberal left has their way and that might even be in jeopardy.
The Democrats and Republicans are history. It's the conversatives vs the liberals.
Sam the Eagle | 12:23 p.m. March 4, 2008
This is unpatriotic!I refuse to be Republican or Democrat. I refuse to call
myself liberal or conservative. All the above are to blame for the destruction
of our constitution. I am an AMERICAN! Conservatives are wannabees and are
really not all that conservative to begin with. These people always point out
the unconstitutional amendments as an excuse for being constitutional. SAVE THE
CONSTITUTION!
extremists on their way out | 1:11 p.m. March 4, 2008
The postings above indicate that extremism is only popular with the Rush
O'Hannity crowd and is most assuredly on the way out of the political
limelight and banished to the darkness where it belongs.
In November we will witness America (the real America) roaring back!
In November we will witness America (the real America) roaring back!
HAHAHA LIBTARD | 1:57 p.m. March 4, 2008
Roaring back by Osama or Hillary?
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let me clue you in, do away with the illegal FED and the IRS if you want to see what real freedom looks like. Ron Paul is the only one who stands up to the Rockefellers and other banking monarchy.
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let me clue you in, do away with the illegal FED and the IRS if you want to see what real freedom looks like. Ron Paul is the only one who stands up to the Rockefellers and other banking monarchy.
Libertarians Unite! | 2:37 p.m. March 4, 2008
A Libertarian government would be very simple:
1) Every citizen has the right to lead their life in what ever way they choose, without interference from others (including the government), so long as it does not infringe on the inalienable rights (life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness) of another citizen.
2) The individual has the responsibility to accept the consequences of their choices, for better or for worse, without the expectation of assistance from others.
What is so objectionable about that philosophy?
1) Every citizen has the right to lead their life in what ever way they choose, without interference from others (including the government), so long as it does not infringe on the inalienable rights (life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness) of another citizen.
2) The individual has the responsibility to accept the consequences of their choices, for better or for worse, without the expectation of assistance from others.
What is so objectionable about that philosophy?
TOT | 3:00 p.m. March 4, 2008
The term conservative doesn't mean much when "conservatives" are
selling out our country and driving us deep into debt.
I would much prefer a CONSTITUTIONALIST!!
I would much prefer a CONSTITUTIONALIST!!
Anonymous | 3:22 p.m. March 4, 2008
If the conservatives who post their childish Rush O'Hannity rants on this
blog are representative of the modern American conservative movement - that
movement is a dead one.
Thomas | 3:46 p.m. March 4, 2008
Anon, is that the best you can do?
Anonymous | 4:11 p.m. March 4, 2008
Conservatives remind me of little children who refuse to eat anything but hot
dogs and macaroni and cheese - and nothing else.
When confronted with something new, say shrimp or lobster, little kids wrinkle their brows and say "Ewwww! That's too weird for me! No thanks!" Most little kids grow out of this stage and eventually can appreciate the new and exciting things in life.
The rest remain stuck while life passes them by.
And this is where our conservative friends will remain - as the rest of America passes them by.
When confronted with something new, say shrimp or lobster, little kids wrinkle their brows and say "Ewwww! That's too weird for me! No thanks!" Most little kids grow out of this stage and eventually can appreciate the new and exciting things in life.
The rest remain stuck while life passes them by.
And this is where our conservative friends will remain - as the rest of America passes them by.
Thomas | 7:35 p.m. March 4, 2008
My six-year-old daughter loves shrimp. Judging from some of her recent comments
re: Mr. Obama's prospective tax policies (I have no idea where she got that
-- not from me, honest!) I strongly suspect she's a natural-born
conservative. So that pretty much demolishes your argument.
I draw the line at pickled sheep's unmentionables, though. Call me an awful hidebound conservative, but some things are just a little too "new and exciting" for me.
I draw the line at pickled sheep's unmentionables, though. Call me an awful hidebound conservative, but some things are just a little too "new and exciting" for me.
Anonymous | 6:34 a.m. March 5, 2008
No Thomas -
We are all born live-and-let live liberal. Then something happens to some that traumatizes them and there they remain stuck.
Then in thinking they are taking no chances and fearful of this and that, the sad fools pass this along to their children.
Those who brag about this, I have the highest compassion for.
What a dreadful and frightening way to go through life! My guess is your daughter will hopefull rebel against this sad and angry philosophy and eventually find peace and joy for herself.
We are all born live-and-let live liberal. Then something happens to some that traumatizes them and there they remain stuck.
Then in thinking they are taking no chances and fearful of this and that, the sad fools pass this along to their children.
Those who brag about this, I have the highest compassion for.
What a dreadful and frightening way to go through life! My guess is your daughter will hopefull rebel against this sad and angry philosophy and eventually find peace and joy for herself.
the inner conservative | 9:21 a.m. March 5, 2008
I think all of us are born live-and-let live liberal. Open, free, giving,
tolerant, not afraid of change.
Then something awful happens that traumatizes and paralyzes them (it happens to all of us in one degree or another) and instead of going to work on their internal problems (which usually originates from mistakes of their primary care-givers) some choose to remain stuck in a certain space in time not understanding why they are so unhappy day after day.
In adopting a make-no-false-moves way of life, and being fearful of this and that, these sad souls essentially do nothing whatsoever but focus on protecting their broken egos and pass this paranoid state of being along to their children believing this is the smartest way to live.
This is the classic conservative state of mind that seems to be manifesting itself in today's nasty political climate.
Those who brag about this life philosophy I have the highest compassion for. I only wish there was something I could do to assist them in the letting go process.
Then something awful happens that traumatizes and paralyzes them (it happens to all of us in one degree or another) and instead of going to work on their internal problems (which usually originates from mistakes of their primary care-givers) some choose to remain stuck in a certain space in time not understanding why they are so unhappy day after day.
In adopting a make-no-false-moves way of life, and being fearful of this and that, these sad souls essentially do nothing whatsoever but focus on protecting their broken egos and pass this paranoid state of being along to their children believing this is the smartest way to live.
This is the classic conservative state of mind that seems to be manifesting itself in today's nasty political climate.
Those who brag about this life philosophy I have the highest compassion for. I only wish there was something I could do to assist them in the letting go process.
TownHeathan | 10:06 a.m. March 5, 2008
Yes..I want to be a conservative. I want to cause war's, increase the
national debt and ignore all the illegals that are in America getting a free
ride without paying tax's while my own kids have trouble finding a job at
the minimum pay rate that hasn't been changed by the
"conserviatives" for over 10 years, while in the meantime the cost of
living has gone up over 25%!!!!
Spare me your retoric. Conservatives only think about themselves and not about those that are less fortunate. The sad part is that most of these "conservatives" do so in the name of being "Christians". How far from the truth could they possibly be? Freedom of choice means just that. Conservitves want to control how people think, act and behave.
Lastly...your current president is a great example of conservitive politics. We've now taken over a country based on lying about nuceluar weapons, we've tortured people in the name of fighting terrorism and we've made the Nat'l debt more than ever in the history of the USA. WAY TO GO BUSH!!!!
Spare me your retoric. Conservatives only think about themselves and not about those that are less fortunate. The sad part is that most of these "conservatives" do so in the name of being "Christians". How far from the truth could they possibly be? Freedom of choice means just that. Conservitves want to control how people think, act and behave.
Lastly...your current president is a great example of conservitive politics. We've now taken over a country based on lying about nuceluar weapons, we've tortured people in the name of fighting terrorism and we've made the Nat'l debt more than ever in the history of the USA. WAY TO GO BUSH!!!!
magnus | 10:45 a.m. March 5, 2008
Anon, brother you are sort of making a fool of yourself here. I took the time
to read your entire exchange with Thomas and regardless of the points you are
trying to make you have repeatedly made statements that are hypocritical and
clearly based in emotion and not rational thought.
As with so many word in our current culture the very word "conservative" has been corrupted to the point that it caries no real meaning anymore. The same is true of the word "liberal". When someone asks for a "true conservative" to save the nation I think what they are asking for is someone who believes what they believe.
By modern definition I would be considered a very conservative person. I beleive that "the American Dream" lies in the unique potential of capitalism and a free market economy. I believe that while there is a separation of ORGANIZED religion and the govornment, individual faith and the expression of it cannot be separated from the Public sphere any more than it can be separated from the individual.
As with so many word in our current culture the very word "conservative" has been corrupted to the point that it caries no real meaning anymore. The same is true of the word "liberal". When someone asks for a "true conservative" to save the nation I think what they are asking for is someone who believes what they believe.
By modern definition I would be considered a very conservative person. I beleive that "the American Dream" lies in the unique potential of capitalism and a free market economy. I believe that while there is a separation of ORGANIZED religion and the govornment, individual faith and the expression of it cannot be separated from the Public sphere any more than it can be separated from the individual.
magnus | 11:18 a.m. March 5, 2008
cont...
I believe that the federal government has an important role but that they have greatly overstepped that role in the past century.
All that being said, I have had great difficulty debating with myself this question.
Who are (or what is) the state/federal government responsible for? I honestly don't know were to draw the line.
The USA gets a lot of pub for being the richest country on earth but what isn't often mentioned is that we are also the most charitable. In fact Americans give almost double the amount (as a percentage of GDP) than any other nation.
If we start mandating that the government should take care of us, and then we have to pay them a larger portion of our income to do so, how will that effect our ability to give?
I believe that the federal government has an important role but that they have greatly overstepped that role in the past century.
All that being said, I have had great difficulty debating with myself this question.
Who are (or what is) the state/federal government responsible for? I honestly don't know were to draw the line.
The USA gets a lot of pub for being the richest country on earth but what isn't often mentioned is that we are also the most charitable. In fact Americans give almost double the amount (as a percentage of GDP) than any other nation.
If we start mandating that the government should take care of us, and then we have to pay them a larger portion of our income to do so, how will that effect our ability to give?
Anonymous | 11:38 a.m. March 5, 2008
Magnus is clearly another scared-to-death conservative with an unexamined
life.
They get off on relating to Rush O'Hannity as they scream, yell, insult, and pull their little hairs out.
Meanwhile the rest of America (mostly liberal) goes about the process of much-needed change and the service inherent in this is more rewarding than any sad conservative will ever experience in this lifetime.
They get off on relating to Rush O'Hannity as they scream, yell, insult, and pull their little hairs out.
Meanwhile the rest of America (mostly liberal) goes about the process of much-needed change and the service inherent in this is more rewarding than any sad conservative will ever experience in this lifetime.
Anonymous | 11:48 a.m. March 5, 2008
Do you really think it matters who is elected? I don't.
magnus | 11:52 a.m. March 5, 2008
Again with the hypocrisy.
The only one "screaming, yelling, and insulting" here is you. You smugly act like you, and whoever it is that you think is with you, have a monopoly on good and that anyone who fits into whatever convoluted definition of "conservative" you have established is inferior and deluded.
I hope you realize that when you say these things you simply prove that you are no different than these "conservatives" you have been berating. You use fear and absolutes to stifle differing views and intelligent discussion.
The only one "screaming, yelling, and insulting" here is you. You smugly act like you, and whoever it is that you think is with you, have a monopoly on good and that anyone who fits into whatever convoluted definition of "conservative" you have established is inferior and deluded.
I hope you realize that when you say these things you simply prove that you are no different than these "conservatives" you have been berating. You use fear and absolutes to stifle differing views and intelligent discussion.
magnus | 11:58 a.m. March 5, 2008
...and sarcasm, don't let me forget sarcasm.
liberals are better adjusted | 12:04 p.m. March 5, 2008
It's easy (albeit sad) to see how easily our frightened conservatives
become unglued. (see magnus 11:52)
These are indeed difficult times for conservatives as everything around them is falling apart. So as they refuse to examine their lives and see what it is that is making them choose to remain dreadfully unhappy- they find the way onto the Rush O'Hannity shows for strange companionship and fellowship with others who are just as angry and insecure as they.
These are indeed difficult times for conservatives as everything around them is falling apart. So as they refuse to examine their lives and see what it is that is making them choose to remain dreadfully unhappy- they find the way onto the Rush O'Hannity shows for strange companionship and fellowship with others who are just as angry and insecure as they.
magnus | 12:34 p.m. March 5, 2008
Ok I can clearly see I am wasting my time here but this has to be said...
I am sorry that I called you a fool, clearly we got off the wrong foot. But instead of refuting that initial statement you have more than lived up to it.
I asked an honest question, a question that I think about often because I care about people and I know that what we are dong now isn't working: "where do we draw the line of government responsibility"
I invited you to share your views with me because I genuinely want to know what people think about this and why.
So what do I get for a response????
"magnus is clearly another scared to death conservative with an unexamined life."
Really? do you know me? Or do you just know my "type", and enjoy placing every one in convenient little idealogical boxes?
And thanks for proving my point, again...
"it's easy to see ...how easily our frightened conservatives become unglued"
It's like you are reading a Anne Colter narrative and just replacing the word "liberal" with the word "conservative".
I am sorry that I called you a fool, clearly we got off the wrong foot. But instead of refuting that initial statement you have more than lived up to it.
I asked an honest question, a question that I think about often because I care about people and I know that what we are dong now isn't working: "where do we draw the line of government responsibility"
I invited you to share your views with me because I genuinely want to know what people think about this and why.
So what do I get for a response????
"magnus is clearly another scared to death conservative with an unexamined life."
Really? do you know me? Or do you just know my "type", and enjoy placing every one in convenient little idealogical boxes?
And thanks for proving my point, again...
"it's easy to see ...how easily our frightened conservatives become unglued"
It's like you are reading a Anne Colter narrative and just replacing the word "liberal" with the word "conservative".
liberal means compassion | 12:42 p.m. March 5, 2008
Our self-proclaimed conservatives are the saddest and most lost people on the
face of the earth today.
Dead-set against taking that inward journey to see when and where they first lost their personal power (it's usually to an opposite-sex care-giver), they remain stuck in a psychological trap they have constructed for themselves. Some find their way into alcoholics anonymous, others remain addicted to other substances such as Rush Limbaugh's drug of choice, OxyContin. Most are stimulated by the sting of battle and are notoriously jingoistic. When these poor souls run out internally-created enemies, they turn on each other, ie., "We need a real conservative" as this subject would indicate.
There is nothing anybody can do for these lost souls.
They must take that long, hard journey to better emotional health all on their own.
That's the way it is.
Dead-set against taking that inward journey to see when and where they first lost their personal power (it's usually to an opposite-sex care-giver), they remain stuck in a psychological trap they have constructed for themselves. Some find their way into alcoholics anonymous, others remain addicted to other substances such as Rush Limbaugh's drug of choice, OxyContin. Most are stimulated by the sting of battle and are notoriously jingoistic. When these poor souls run out internally-created enemies, they turn on each other, ie., "We need a real conservative" as this subject would indicate.
There is nothing anybody can do for these lost souls.
They must take that long, hard journey to better emotional health all on their own.
That's the way it is.
Anonymous | 12:59 p.m. March 5, 2008
Magnus says, "I am wasting my time here..."
Bingo!
That's the FIRST step, Magnus.
Congratulations!
Bingo!
That's the FIRST step, Magnus.
Congratulations!
Real conservatives | 3:41 p.m. March 5, 2008
Real Conservatives believe any concession made will be seen as a sign of
weakness to be exploited further, so there is no dialog. Conservatives
don't want to be agreed with - they want to be obeyed. They think they have
the God-given right, aptly enough, to make the rules, not just for
Conservatives, but for everyone, and some of us, frankly, think that's a
little bit too much to ask. And if you think that's unreasonable, all I can
say is my freedom is more important than your ideology. Much, much more
important. And besides, I just have this natural aversion to being bullied and
pushed around by bigoted misogynistic ignoramuses championed by drug-riddled
bloated talkshow divisionists. And I say that with all due respect.
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next >
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- U.S., Japan reach flight pact 11:03 p.m.
- Draft proposal reached on climate 11:02 p.m.
- Book review: 'I Heard the Bells...' 11:02 p.m.
- World datelines 11:02 p.m.
- U.N. official to step down 11:01 p.m.
- Troop reductions in Iraq on track 11:00 p.m.
- Oil-field auction in Iraq 11:00 p.m.
- Pope will write letter to Irish 11:00 p.m.
- Man, care company fued over film 10:59 p.m.
- BYU panel calls for morals in movies 10:55 p.m.
- Letters: Global warming a lie
277 - BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall195
- Palin signs books, chats with fans169
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax143
- Nude bathers cited for lewdness138
- Max Hall wants to look ahead130
- Jazz fall apart late at L.A.110
- LDS to emphasize helping needy107
- Revive full food tax?106
- Panel passes BCS playoff bill105
Can you tell I just got out of a budget meeting with Gov Gary Herbert?
For the latest news in the health care debate and how it affects you...
Latest comments
Historically, Christmas Day was but one of 365 days in the Christian...
I am a die-hard Utah fan. I hate absolutely everything abou BYU. But i will...
I agree with The Truth....Having been around Coach Cleveland in Provo and...
Ask the Utah Food Bank what % of the donations and volunteers are from the...
The Jazz are a good team and will play some good games. Right now that is the...
It was incredible, the sound was phenomenal, and Natalie's story about...
Again, you're wrong. BYU was the only undefeated team left in 1984. At the...
Selective memory | 4:50 a.m. Speaking of "Selective Memory"!!!!...
Sounds impressive, there is a good chance I will show up there sometime with...
And the IRS will audit the tax funded cell phones to make sure they are only...
Advertisements
Pure conservatism, the civil rights law would never have been passed, we wouldn't have social security, or public schools. Pure socialism, we wouldn't have the economic muscle to pay for the things in socialism that are good. There needs to be a profit motive. This can get carried away and needs to be regulated but it needs to be there.
What we need is more common sense, not more conservatism.