When I think of conservatism...

[iustitia]

I think of Edmund Burke, John Adams, Russell Kirk, Pat Buchanan and Barry Goldwater. I don't think of any Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, Sean Hannity, or anyone running for president.

I don't think of neo-conservatism, which is conservative in name only. Conservatism is about tradition and history. It's about the human experience. It's about learning about the past for the sake of society's future. Kirk said that neocons were "often clever, never wise." Conservatives seek to understand, but all Ive seen from neocons is the belittling of the intellectual. Rejecting truth as a barrier to policy goals. History has become nothing but a banner or talking point, not a subject of reflection and meditation. Kirk accurately argued that neocons try to be clever in their machinations more than they try to make good decisions. Wisdom is a requisite. Adams and Burke were wise enough to appreciate the American rebellion and fear the French Revolution.

I think about preserving American sovereignty, not the sovereignty of foreign governments. Pat Buchanan once said that "Capitol Hill is Israeli occupied territory". Russel Kirk said of neocon loyalties that it was "as if some eminent Neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States." It's funny in a sad way, but at least three Republicans in one of the recent debates talked about Israel's future, when responding to the closing question which was about America's future.

I think of modesty, of restraint, of prudence. You would think if neocons were conservative they'd learn from the past and apply it to the present for the future's sake. But no, neocons advocate striking hard and fast in places they more likely than not don't have any familiarity of. Historically, it was the liberals who mongered for war. Every time. The northern conservatives opposed the War of 1812 so much that they actually refused to fight for the imperialist ambitions of the liberals, tried to cooperate with the British, and even tried to secede from the Union. WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam - the big four of the 20th century - were all started by liberal imperialists for commercial interests as well as hegemony in world affairs.

I think of non-interventionism, not war mongering. Now neocons call non-interventionism 'liberal'. Kirk again: "Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson were enthusiasts for American domination of the world. Now George Bush appears to be emulating those eminent Democrats. When the Republicans, once upon a time, nominated for the presidency a "One World" candidate, Wendell Willkie, they were sadly trounced. In general, Republicans throughout the twentieth century have been advocates of prudence and restraint in the conduct of foreign affairs."

I think not of stubborn contrarianism, but a rational and pragmatic approach to an evolving world. Conservatism and traditionalism can thrive if they can adapt. Sacrificing principals is different than figuring out what works and what doesn't. The War on Drugs was sold to traditional America as the last line of defense against an expanding drug epidemic. Conservatism is rooted in history, however. Stubbornly refusing to reconsider drug prohibition or at least federal wars on bad habits - when history shows us that it's only made the problem of drug addiction worse, made drugs more available, imprisoned a huge portion of the population, increased violence in our streets and militarized civilian police - is completely irrational and an affront to wisdom.

I think of frugality, not pissing away our wealth. Even ignoring the human cost of the War on Drugs, think of the literal cost. How can anyone claim to support free markets, low taxes and less spending while supporting the War on Drugs which costs the federal government $15 billion a year, $500 every second? The war in Afghanistan costs taxpayers $4 million every hour and we've spent over $715 billion there. The war in Iraq cost taxpayers over $818 billion, and is still rising over $117,000 every hour. The crusade against ISIS has so far cost taxpayers over $6 billion and jumps every hour by another $600,000!

I think of community, localism. I don't think of being the world's bank or used tank salesman. We give foreign governments $1,420,000 every hour in military assistance and for what? Who benefits? I'm sure someone benefits but it isn't me, my loved ones or my community. Our country, cities and society are rotting culturally and structurally. But we care more about making sure that foreigners are in our pocket than we do about making sure we have stable communities. Maybe if we weren't pissing away money overseas on people, states and regimes most Americans can't find on a map, maybe we couldn't have so easily ignored the fact that the federal government improperly spent $121 billion last year on fraudulent entitlements. The Veterans Affairs Department's budget is $78 billion, meaning that the government wasted what amounts to 155% of that because our programs are so bloated that there's no way to keep track of what's going where, and you cant even be mad over that when you realize we relentlessly shit out over $500 billion a year for an out of control "Defense" Department and over $50 billion for "Homeland Security", not even counting the cost of war. Why are we guarding the borders of Middle Eastern fanatics when we leave our own border completely unguarded? If we're going to spend so much on the military then we ought to make sure it's for the actual defense of our republic by putting troops on our borders instead of on Iran's.

I think of truth and the humbleness required to accept it. Jesus said that the truth shall set you free. The conservative must wrestle with his feelings and desires. He must reconcile his beliefs and values with the historical record, the reality of the world around him, and the nature of man. Conservatism is as much about learning and understanding as it is about remembering and continuing. The reason tradition is so important is because it's a continuation of what works. It's both our connection to a transcendent order and our rational minds. There's no shame in critical thinking, second-guessing yourself or aspiring to intelligence. The neocon rejects intellectual inquiry. It makes him feel inferior because logic is dangerous for sycophants, psychos and sociopaths. Instead of cultivating an appreciation for the prudence of conservatism, neocons belittle it, they deride it as impractical despite the laundry list of evidence proving their militarism to be both unwise as a policy and destructive to all nations involved.

I think of culture. The conservative's goal isn't to avoid change, but to prevent an unnatural assassination of cultural character. Conservatives value their pile of dirt over all others, but they're also not so arrogant as to think it would behoove them to remake the world in their people's image. Civilization is to be highly regarded, even those foreign. It is our values that make us unique. We do not need to impose them on others. William F. Buckley said of Bush and the Iraq War before his death: "The reality of the situation is that missions abroad to effect regime change in countries without a bill of rights or democratic tradition are terribly arduous" and near the end of his life believed neocons had utterly destroyed the true conservative movement. Pushing liberal democracy into places where no tradition for it exists is beyond arrogant and completely asinine. Democratic peace theories, entangling alliances, wars on concepts and the like are absolutely idiotic. Conservatism is a bottom-to-top approach for protecting tradition and culture, and neocons have made their bread and butter by dismantling foreign societies from top to bottom (exactly like the liberals they claim as their opposites).

I think of respect. Conservatism is a gentleman's philosophy. Neocons believe in torture, shooting first and asking questions later, presuming guilt, killing without trials, and spying on their neighbors. Gentlemen do not read each other's mail. Neocons believe the ends justify the means, there's no place for proportionality, and acceptable losses and collateral damage are winning conditions. Conservatives should revere the beauty of God's creation, both its scale and its complexity. Whether you accept scientific consensuses or not, if you think God gave you the planet... why the fuck wouldn't you take care of it? I'm sure when Jesus comes back he'll give us a mulligan and fix everything we destroy, right? You don't need to be a hippy environmentalist to want clean soil, water and air for future generations. That's just considerate. I'm sure God places more value on cheap prices and stocks than the fucking world he loved enough to sacrifice his son for. What is God, a fuckin braindead librul?

I think of life and a desire to check corruption. I hate rap for the most part, I hate urban culture, and I dislike the ever-degrading state of the minority life style. And yet, for all the faults I see in the modern minority, I don't immediately jump at the chance to fellate the police when cops gun down a person of color. I know racism is real. It's over-stated by poverty pimps and race hustlers, but it doesn't mean that our system is wholly colorblind and altruistic. And even ignoring demographics altogether, there is a problem in my eyes with the ever-growing militarization of police. When people jump to a cop's defense after they've killed a human being, I die a little on the inside. Is every instance of a cop shooting someone an act of injustice? No, lots of people are scumbags. But should a conservative place his trust in a man merely because he wears a uniform and has a badge? I don't think so. More Americans have been killed since 9/11 by cops than by terrorists. Cops do heinous things, immoral things. They're just people. A conservative shouldn't look at a victim of a cop and immediately think 'thug'. I believe all life is precious, that there is often a different solution than killing. If I care about the lives of the unborn I must also care about those who were born and have much to lose to the sins of the state. A conservative must respect hierarchy and reject egalitarianism, but he must also see the humanity in his brothers no matter his appearance. I think it's immoral to perpetuate social strife because you identify with the winning team.

I think of what we've lost as a society. Neocons and progressives are two sides of the same coin. There's no substantive difference. The values of conservatism have been whitewashed by fierce nationalism, zionism, militarism and commercialism. The conservative has no recourse but to sulk in the emptiness of his forgotten philosophy. Perhaps those who consider themselves 'conservatives' need to reevaluate what that word means, and perhaps 'neocon' ought to be defined as 'kinda conservative at home, liberal everywhere else'. These are, of course, just my views.

[donttread]

I think of Edmund Burke, John Adams, Russell Kirk, Pat Buchanan and Barry Goldwater. I don't think of any Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, Sean Hannity, or anyone running for president.

I don't think of neo-conservatism, which is conservative in name only. Conservatism is about tradition and history. It's about the human experience. It's about learning about the past for the sake of society's future. Kirk said that neocons were "often clever, never wise." Conservatives seek to understand, but all Ive seen from neocons is the belittling of the intellectual. Rejecting truth as a barrier to policy goals. History has become nothing but a banner or talking point, not a subject of reflection and meditation. Kirk accurately argued that neocons try to be clever in their machinations more than they try to make good decisions. Wisdom is a requisite. Adams and Burke were wise enough to appreciate the American rebellion and fear the French Revolution.

I think about preserving American sovereignty, not the sovereignty of foreign governments. Pat Buchanan once said that "Capitol Hill is Israeli occupied territory". Russel Kirk said of neocon loyalties that it was "as if some eminent Neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States." It's funny in a sad way, but at least three Republicans in one of the recent debates talked about Israel's future, when responding to the closing question which was about America's future.

I think of modesty, of restraint, of prudence. You would think if neocons were conservative they'd learn from the past and apply it to the present for the future's sake. But no, neocons advocate striking hard and fast in places they more likely than not don't have any familiarity of. Historically, it was the liberals who mongered for war. Every time. The northern conservatives opposed the War of 1812 so much that they actually refused to fight for the imperialist ambitions of the liberals, tried to cooperate with the British, and even tried to secede from the Union. WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam - the big four of the 20th century - were all started by liberal imperialists for commercial interests as well as hegemony in world affairs.

I think of non-interventionism, not war mongering. Now neocons call non-interventionism 'liberal'. Kirk again: "Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson were enthusiasts for American domination of the world. Now George Bush appears to be emulating those eminent Democrats. When the Republicans, once upon a time, nominated for the presidency a "One World" candidate, Wendell Willkie, they were sadly trounced. In general, Republicans throughout the twentieth century have been advocates of prudence and restraint in the conduct of foreign affairs."

I think not of stubborn contrarianism, but a rational and pragmatic approach to an evolving world. Conservatism and traditionalism can thrive if they can adapt. Sacrificing principals is different than figuring out what works and what doesn't. The War on Drugs was sold to traditional America as the last line of defense against an expanding drug epidemic. Conservatism is rooted in history, however. Stubbornly refusing to reconsider drug prohibition or at least federal wars on bad habits - when history shows us that it's only made the problem of drug addiction worse, made drugs more available, imprisoned a huge portion of the population, increased violence in our streets and militarized civilian police - is completely irrational and an affront to wisdom.

I think of frugality, not pissing away our wealth. Even ignoring the human cost of the War on Drugs, think of the literal cost. How can anyone claim to support free markets, low taxes and less spending while supporting the War on Drugs which costs the federal government $15 billion a year, $500 every second? The war in Afghanistan costs taxpayers $4 million every hour and we've spent over $715 billion there. The war in Iraq cost taxpayers over $818 billion, and is still rising over $117,000 every hour. The crusade against ISIS has so far cost taxpayers over $6 billion and jumps every hour by another $600,000!

I think of community, localism. I don't think of being the world's bank or used tank salesman. We give foreign governments $1,420,000 every hour in military assistance and for what? Who benefits? I'm sure someone benefits but it isn't me, my loved ones or my community. Our country, cities and society are rotting culturally and structurally. But we care more about making sure that foreigners are in our pocket than we do about making sure we have stable communities. Maybe if we weren't pissing away money overseas on people, states and regimes most Americans can't find on a map, maybe we couldn't have so easily ignored the fact that the federal government improperly spent $121 billion last year on fraudulent entitlements. The Veterans Affairs Department's budget is $78 billion, meaning that the government wasted what amounts to 155% of that because our programs are so bloated that there's no way to keep track of what's going where, and you cant even be mad over that when you realize we relentlessly shit out over $500 billion a year for an out of control "Defense" Department and over $50 billion for "Homeland Security", not even counting the cost of war. Why are we guarding the borders of Middle Eastern fanatics when we leave our own border completely unguarded? If we're going to spend so much on the military then we ought to make sure it's for the actual defense of our republic by putting troops on our borders instead of on Iran's.

I think of truth and the humbleness required to accept it. Jesus said that the truth shall set you free. The conservative must wrestle with his feelings and desires. He must reconcile his beliefs and values with the historical record, the reality of the world around him, and the nature of man. Conservatism is as much about learning and understanding as it is about remembering and continuing. The reason tradition is so important is because it's a continuation of what works. It's both our connection to a transcendent order and our rational minds. There's no shame in critical thinking, second-guessing yourself or aspiring to intelligence. The neocon rejects intellectual inquiry. It makes him feel inferior because logic is dangerous for sycophants, psychos and sociopaths. Instead of cultivating an appreciation for the prudence of conservatism, neocons belittle it, they deride it as impractical despite the laundry list of evidence proving their militarism to be both unwise as a policy and destructive to all nations involved.

I think of culture. The conservative's goal isn't to avoid change, but to prevent an unnatural assassination of cultural character. Conservatives value their pile of dirt over all others, but they're also not so arrogant as to think it would behoove them to remake the world in their people's image. Civilization is to be highly regarded, even those foreign. It is our values that make us unique. We do not need to impose them on others. William F. Buckley said of Bush and the Iraq War before his death: "The reality of the situation is that missions abroad to effect regime change in countries without a bill of rights or democratic tradition are terribly arduous" and near the end of his life believed neocons had utterly destroyed the true conservative movement. Pushing liberal democracy into places where no tradition for it exists is beyond arrogant and completely asinine. Democratic peace theories, entangling alliances, wars on concepts and the like are absolutely idiotic. Conservatism is a bottom-to-top approach for protecting tradition and culture, and neocons have made their bread and butter by dismantling foreign societies from top to bottom (exactly like the liberals they claim as their opposites).

I think of respect. Conservatism is a gentleman's philosophy. Neocons believe in torture, shooting first and asking questions later, presuming guilt, killing without trials, and spying on their neighbors. Gentlemen do not read each other's mail. Neocons believe the ends justify the means, there's no place for proportionality, and acceptable losses and collateral damage are winning conditions. Conservatives should revere the beauty of God's creation, both its scale and its complexity. Whether you accept scientific consensuses or not, if you think God gave you the planet... why the fuck wouldn't you take care of it? I'm sure when Jesus comes back he'll give us a mulligan and fix everything we destroy, right? You don't need to be a hippy environmentalist to want clean soil, water and air for future generations. That's just considerate. I'm sure God places more value on cheap prices and stocks than the fucking world he loved enough to sacrifice his son for. What is God, a fuckin braindead librul?

I think of life and a desire to check corruption. I hate rap for the most part, I hate urban culture, and I dislike the ever-degrading state of the minority life style. And yet, for all the faults I see in the modern minority, I don't immediately jump at the chance to fellate the police when cops gun down a person of color. I know racism is real. It's over-stated by poverty pimps and race hustlers, but it doesn't mean that our system is wholly colorblind and altruistic. And even ignoring demographics altogether, there is a problem in my eyes with the ever-growing militarization of police. When people jump to a cop's defense after they've killed a human being, I die a little on the inside. Is every instance of a cop shooting someone an act of injustice? No, lots of people are scumbags. But should a conservative place his trust in a man merely because he wears a uniform and has a badge? I don't think so. More Americans have been killed since 9/11 by cops than by terrorists. Cops do heinous things, immoral things. They're just people. A conservative shouldn't look at a victim of a cop and immediately think 'thug'. I believe all life is precious, that there is often a different solution than killing. If I care about the lives of the unborn I must also care about those who were born and have much to lose to the sins of the state. A conservative must respect hierarchy and reject egalitarianism, but he must also see the humanity in his brothers no matter his appearance. I think it's immoral to perpetuate social strife because you identify with the winning team.

I think of what we've lost as a society. Neocons and progressives are two sides of the same coin. There's no substantive difference. The values of conservatism have been whitewashed by fierce nationalism, zionism, militarism and commercialism. The conservative has no recourse but to sulk in the emptiness of his forgotten philosophy. Perhaps those who consider themselves 'conservatives' need to reevaluate what that word means, and perhaps 'neocon' ought to be defined as 'kinda conservative at home, liberal everywhere else'. These are, of course, just my views.

Agree with much of this. Many so called modern day "conservatives " would be better called " self centeredives"

[PolWatch]

The differences we see are not about conservative/progressive political philosophy, its political football....nothing matters except beating the other team. The extremes of left/right have gone so far its difficult to tell when one group stops and the other group starts.

[Crepitus]

Agree with much of this. Many so called modern day "conservatives " would be better called " self centeredives"
Yes, today's conservatism is actually nothing more than selfishness, exactly like spoiled little children.

[midcan5]

Interesting OP, but 'hate' is too strong a word in your next to last paragraph. I've lived in the city all my life, and have to say it brings together things you can't find in other places and is actually considered a better place for mental health as you have more neighbors and more contacts. If there is one common among our crazies it is isolation from people and from life itself. As for conservatism, I've often thought we should add American as its prefix as AC is much different than C in other nations or even minds. Too often C is simply a self centered attitude that I know better. I have written lots on conservatism as I found its creation after FDR a falsehood made by vested interests. Prior to that its meaning had other sources. You may find the book below interesting as it outlines C opposition to change brilliantly. Reading history often causes reconsideration.

'The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy' Albert O. Hirschman - This too: 'Invisible Hands: The Businessmen's Crusade Against the New Deal' Kim Phillips-Fein

"Before 1950 the political designation of “conservative” was disavowed, if not altogether disliked, by most Americans, including Republicans. Yet very soon after, and for the first time in American history, ideological “conservatism” became a more than acceptable political designation. By the 1980s, more Americans called themselves “conservatives” than “liberals.” Much of this was ambiguous, since many Americans were not truly conservative at all, except for their opposition to liberals." John Lukacs 'American Nationalism'

[Chris]

iustitia, great post. Agree with a lot of it.

I would however replace Russel Kirk with Bill Buckley. Buckley fits your description of a conservative better, and did much more to start what was back in the 50s called the New Conservative movement--not to be confused with later neoconservatism. Buckley was much more libertarian and while I respect Kirk, he rejected fusionism and might be considered the forerunner of modern social conservatives. You see, Buckley and Kirk both held to the same values, but Buckley believed you instill virtue by example, Kirk by law.

[Chris]

Interesting OP, but 'hate' is too strong a word in your next to last paragraph. I've lived in the city all my life, and have to say it brings together things you can't find in other places and is actually considered a better place for mental health as you have more neighbors and more contacts. If there is one common among our crazies it is isolation from people and from life itself. As for conservatism, I've often thought we should add American as its prefix as AC is much different than C in other nations or even minds. Too often C is simply a self centered attitude that I know better. I have written lots on conservatism as I found its creation after FDR a falsehood made by vested interests. Prior to that its meaning had other sources. You may find the book below interesting as it outlines C opposition to change brilliantly. Reading history often causes reconsideration.

'The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy' Albert O. Hirschman - This too: 'Invisible Hands: The Businessmen's Crusade Against the New Deal' Kim Phillips-Fein

"Before 1950 the political designation of “conservative” was disavowed, if not altogether disliked, by most Americans, including Republicans. Yet very soon after, and for the first time in American history, ideological “conservatism” became a more than acceptable political designation. By the 1980s, more Americans called themselves “conservatives” than “liberals.” Much of this was ambiguous, since many Americans were not truly conservative at all, except for their opposition to liberals." John Lukacs 'American Nationalism'


"Before 1950 the political designation of “conservative” was disavowed, if not altogether disliked, by most Americans, including Republicans. Yet very soon after, and for the first time in American history, ideological “conservatism” became a more than acceptable political designation. By the 1980s, more Americans called themselves “conservatives” than “liberals.” Much of this was ambiguous, since many Americans were not truly conservative at all, except for their opposition to liberals." John Lukacs 'American Nationalism'

There's a reason for that. Up until the 50s liberalism was also not part of the political rhetoric in America. FDR and his ilk called themselves Progressives, but the label had become so negative, FDR jijacked liberalism. Europeans like Mises and Hayek refused to give up liberalism but others of their ilk decided on libertarianism while Buckley and Kirk in reaction adopted New Conservatism.

Hirschman is right only in that all three are branches of classical liberalism.

[rembrant]

Yes, today's conservatism is actually nothing more than selfishness, exactly like spoiled little children. Like.. Conservatism always was? Little Wannabe ARISTOCRATS? Funny thing.. is the Teabags make me MISS the real "Conservatives" ..I can't believe I said that. Neo-Con? isn't that just a Conservative who'd go into DEBT to do a WAR where Corporate Cronies make a lot of money? Libertarians are like Conservatives who think it's 100 yr ago. Teabags.. mostly a bunch of Cults that in a sane era are third party or the village idiot. NOw.. the BEST Repub....totally SUCKS. I see dorks who don't know the BASICS about Politics.. and say.. Progressive and Regressive are about the same? How silly. Right..Left.. HUGE gap between. Ain't ANY "moderate Repub"....... Long gone.. and the Teabags are HUNTING and ELIMINATING the last old time Conservatives.

Watch your back.

[iustitia]

@iustitia (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=926), great post. Agree with a lot of it.

I would however replace Russel Kirk with Bill Buckley. Buckley fits your description of a conservative better, and did much more to start what was back in the 50s called the New Conservative movement--not to be confused with later neoconservatism. Buckley was much more libertarian and while I respect Kirk, he rejected fusionism and might be considered the forerunner of modern social conservatives. You see, Buckley and Kirk both held to the same values, but Buckley believed you instill virtue by example, Kirk by law.

I would argue that that's not entirely relevant. Because I consider conservatism a philosophy about society and not a rigid political ideology. And while Adams was far from perfect, I would consider him conservative and he might not exactly be cosidered libertarian. Quite frankly, fusionism may have won elections in the short term but in the long term - and I can't prove this - it may very well have allowed the rise of the neocons and the extinction of traditionalism/paleoconservatism.

So it's great that libertarian ideology is liberty and market-centric. However that's not really the point of conservatism. They can go hand in hand, but perhaps classical liberalism/libertarianism needn't be conflated as a singular belief.

By building the "conservative movement" that gave us Reagan, Buckley also gave us the New Right. Kirkpatrick and all the others, "liberals mugged by reality". Neocons were a direct result of that success. Which probably stung more than anything for Buckley, knowing that he in a way gave birth to the death of his own movement.

Regardless of their views on legislation, I think Kirk and Buckley would join Buchanan in a show of disgust for neocons.

[rembrant]

There's a reason for that. Up until the 50s liberalism was also not part of the political rhetoric in America. FDR and his ilk called themselves Progressives, but the label had become so negative, FDR jijacked liberalism. Europeans like Mises and Hayek refused to give up liberalism but others of their ilk decided on libertarianism while Buckley and Kirk in reaction adopted New Conservatism.

Hirschman is right only in that all three are branches of classical liberalism.Pretty good follow up to a very good post.. and yet.. I see OFTEN reference to whatever "Liberal" means in ENGLAND.. ad that's NOT the case in the USA. I am a bit AMUSED when Right wing EXTREMISTS are labeled as "Conservative.. as if Extremist and Conservative ain't words that are rather OPPOSITE. There's CONSERVATIVE.. and there's Extremists/fascists. NOT really the same animals.
LABELS are in large part a COP OUT.

Socialist. Socialist includes anyone in a society that has paved public roads.. sewers..schools. The word is SO broad as to be MEANINGLESS.

Marxist? Well.. not many of those. There were some then Leninists, Stalinists ,Maoists ..a few other versions of commie. In general.. Old Karl Marx would NOT want his name attached to those. N Korea? That is a Hereditary Monarchy mixed with THUG, Slavery, Psychotic shit and..... whatever. Old Marx would rather have the Czar. Can't pin it all on MARX if there's a number of total sadistic monsters who made the CZAR seem a nice guy. Hard to even say which of Hitler or Stalin was the most evil Fascist. BOTH slaughtered MILLIONS. Both were insane and incompetent.

[Common]

I think of what we've lost as a society. Neocons and progressives are two sides of the same coin. There's no substantive difference. The values of conservatism have been whitewashed by fierce nationalism, zionism, militarism and commercialism. The conservative has no recourse but to sulk in the emptiness of his forgotten philosophy.

The top of the last paragraph says it all in my opinion.
I would add that the commercialism has been put in front of the human factor.

[zelmo1234]

Well I see that our resident liberals did not get there free stuff today? Or something pissed them off.

Maybe my brand is not really conservative but constitutional. But the OP is a poem if you will and fantasy of a Anti sematic hater

For lack of a better way of explaining were we are at, the to sides have been become blurry because they have entered into a co-op

As Chris pointed out the Liberals have blended with the progressives and the conservatives with the libertarians

But the ideologies are really quite simple

The 3 main planks in each are as follows.

For the conservatives

Personal Responsibility, results, a belief in right and wrong.

For the Liberals

Compassion based solutions, a belief that we both can be right, and deferred responsibility.

Take any issue and apply these three principles and you can see the reason that each side approaches issues the way that it does.

Take the challenge it works everytime

[Chris]

I would argue that that's not entirely relevant. Because I consider conservatism a philosophy about society and not a rigid political ideology. And while Adams was far from perfect, I would consider him conservative and he might not exactly be cosidered libertarian. Quite frankly, fusionism may have won elections in the short term but in the long term - and I can't prove this - it may very well have allowed the rise of the neocons and the extinction of traditionalism/paleoconservatism.

So it's great that libertarian ideology is liberty and market-centric. However that's not really the point of conservatism. They can go hand in hand, but perhaps classical liberalism/libertarianism needn't be conflated as a singular belief.

By building the "conservative movement" that gave us Reagan, Buckley also gave us the New Right. Kirkpatrick and all the others, "liberals mugged by reality". Neocons were a direct result of that success. Which probably stung more than anything for Buckley, knowing that he in a way gave birth to the death of his own movement.

Regardless of their views on legislation, I think Kirk and Buckley would join Buchanan in a show of disgust for neocons.


If conservatism is about society then part of that ought to be conserving liberty in society over growing power in the government. That was the point of my comparing Buckley and Kirk.

Agree, both would be disgusted by modern sociacons and neocons.

[Chris]

Pretty good follow up to a very good post.. and yet.. I see OFTEN reference to whatever "Liberal" means in ENGLAND.. ad that's NOT the case in the USA. I am a bit AMUSED when Right wing EXTREMISTS are labeled as "Conservative.. as if Extremist and Conservative ain't words that are rather OPPOSITE. There's CONSERVATIVE.. and there's Extremists/fascists. NOT really the same animals.
LABELS are in large part a COP OUT.

Socialist. Socialist includes anyone in a society that has paved public roads.. sewers..schools. The word is SO broad as to be MEANINGLESS.

Marxist? Well.. not many of those. There were some then Leninists, Stalinists ,Maoists ..a few other versions of commie. In general.. Old Karl Marx would NOT want his name attached to those. N Korea? That is a Hereditary Monarchy mixed with THUG, Slavery, Psychotic shit and..... whatever. Old Marx would rather have the Czar. Can't pin it all on MARX if there's a number of total sadistic monsters who made the CZAR seem a nice guy. Hard to even say which of Hitler or Stalin was the most evil Fascist. BOTH slaughtered MILLIONS. Both were insane and incompetent.

You've taken the ideology out of conservatism, liberalism, socialism, Marxism, Fascism.

[Mister D]

iustitia Great OP.

Not much time right now but I wanted to say that was an interesting comment about Buckley's passing. He all but surrendered his magazine to neoconservative Jews and that's why I stopped subscribing some 8 years ago or so. I didn't know that. Very interesting. Redeems the man to some extent, IMO.

[Mister D]

American conservatives are in an unenviable position in so far as that they champion an economic system that gradually destroys what they are trying to conserve. That is to say that the primacy of the economic sphere fosters relentless change. I don't think American conservatives have ever been able to come to terms with that contradiction.

[Dr. Who]

I think of Edmund Burke, John Adams, Russell Kirk, Pat Buchanan and Barry Goldwater. I don't think of any Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, Sean Hannity, or anyone running for president.

I don't think of neo-conservatism, which is conservative in name only. Conservatism is about tradition and history. It's about the human experience. It's about learning about the past for the sake of society's future. Kirk said that neocons were "often clever, never wise." Conservatives seek to understand, but all Ive seen from neocons is the belittling of the intellectual. Rejecting truth as a barrier to policy goals. History has become nothing but a banner or talking point, not a subject of reflection and meditation. Kirk accurately argued that neocons try to be clever in their machinations more than they try to make good decisions. Wisdom is a requisite. Adams and Burke were wise enough to appreciate the American rebellion and fear the French Revolution.

I think about preserving American sovereignty, not the sovereignty of foreign governments. Pat Buchanan once said that "Capitol Hill is Israeli occupied territory". Russel Kirk said of neocon loyalties that it was "as if some eminent Neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States." It's funny in a sad way, but at least three Republicans in one of the recent debates talked about Israel's future, when responding to the closing question which was about America's future.

I think of modesty, of restraint, of prudence. You would think if neocons were conservative they'd learn from the past and apply it to the present for the future's sake. But no, neocons advocate striking hard and fast in places they more likely than not don't have any familiarity of. Historically, it was the liberals who mongered for war. Every time. The northern conservatives opposed the War of 1812 so much that they actually refused to fight for the imperialist ambitions of the liberals, tried to cooperate with the British, and even tried to secede from the Union. WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam - the big four of the 20th century - were all started by liberal imperialists for commercial interests as well as hegemony in world affairs.

I think of non-interventionism, not war mongering. Now neocons call non-interventionism 'liberal'. Kirk again: "Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson were enthusiasts for American domination of the world. Now George Bush appears to be emulating those eminent Democrats. When the Republicans, once upon a time, nominated for the presidency a "One World" candidate, Wendell Willkie, they were sadly trounced. In general, Republicans throughout the twentieth century have been advocates of prudence and restraint in the conduct of foreign affairs."

I think not of stubborn contrarianism, but a rational and pragmatic approach to an evolving world. Conservatism and traditionalism can thrive if they can adapt. Sacrificing principals is different than figuring out what works and what doesn't. The War on Drugs was sold to traditional America as the last line of defense against an expanding drug epidemic. Conservatism is rooted in history, however. Stubbornly refusing to reconsider drug prohibition or at least federal wars on bad habits - when history shows us that it's only made the problem of drug addiction worse, made drugs more available, imprisoned a huge portion of the population, increased violence in our streets and militarized civilian police - is completely irrational and an affront to wisdom.

I think of frugality, not pissing away our wealth. Even ignoring the human cost of the War on Drugs, think of the literal cost. How can anyone claim to support free markets, low taxes and less spending while supporting the War on Drugs which costs the federal government $15 billion a year, $500 every second? The war in Afghanistan costs taxpayers $4 million every hour and we've spent over $715 billion there. The war in Iraq cost taxpayers over $818 billion, and is still rising over $117,000 every hour. The crusade against ISIS has so far cost taxpayers over $6 billion and jumps every hour by another $600,000!

I think of community, localism. I don't think of being the world's bank or used tank salesman. We give foreign governments $1,420,000 every hour in military assistance and for what? Who benefits? I'm sure someone benefits but it isn't me, my loved ones or my community. Our country, cities and society are rotting culturally and structurally. But we care more about making sure that foreigners are in our pocket than we do about making sure we have stable communities. Maybe if we weren't pissing away money overseas on people, states and regimes most Americans can't find on a map, maybe we couldn't have so easily ignored the fact that the federal government improperly spent $121 billion last year on fraudulent entitlements. The Veterans Affairs Department's budget is $78 billion, meaning that the government wasted what amounts to 155% of that because our programs are so bloated that there's no way to keep track of what's going where, and you cant even be mad over that when you realize we relentlessly shit out over $500 billion a year for an out of control "Defense" Department and over $50 billion for "Homeland Security", not even counting the cost of war. Why are we guarding the borders of Middle Eastern fanatics when we leave our own border completely unguarded? If we're going to spend so much on the military then we ought to make sure it's for the actual defense of our republic by putting troops on our borders instead of on Iran's.

I think of truth and the humbleness required to accept it. Jesus said that the truth shall set you free. The conservative must wrestle with his feelings and desires. He must reconcile his beliefs and values with the historical record, the reality of the world around him, and the nature of man. Conservatism is as much about learning and understanding as it is about remembering and continuing. The reason tradition is so important is because it's a continuation of what works. It's both our connection to a transcendent order and our rational minds. There's no shame in critical thinking, second-guessing yourself or aspiring to intelligence. The neocon rejects intellectual inquiry. It makes him feel inferior because logic is dangerous for sycophants, psychos and sociopaths. Instead of cultivating an appreciation for the prudence of conservatism, neocons belittle it, they deride it as impractical despite the laundry list of evidence proving their militarism to be both unwise as a policy and destructive to all nations involved.

I think of culture. The conservative's goal isn't to avoid change, but to prevent an unnatural assassination of cultural character. Conservatives value their pile of dirt over all others, but they're also not so arrogant as to think it would behoove them to remake the world in their people's image. Civilization is to be highly regarded, even those foreign. It is our values that make us unique. We do not need to impose them on others. William F. Buckley said of Bush and the Iraq War before his death: "The reality of the situation is that missions abroad to effect regime change in countries without a bill of rights or democratic tradition are terribly arduous" and near the end of his life believed neocons had utterly destroyed the true conservative movement. Pushing liberal democracy into places where no tradition for it exists is beyond arrogant and completely asinine. Democratic peace theories, entangling alliances, wars on concepts and the like are absolutely idiotic. Conservatism is a bottom-to-top approach for protecting tradition and culture, and neocons have made their bread and butter by dismantling foreign societies from top to bottom (exactly like the liberals they claim as their opposites).

I think of respect. Conservatism is a gentleman's philosophy. Neocons believe in torture, shooting first and asking questions later, presuming guilt, killing without trials, and spying on their neighbors. Gentlemen do not read each other's mail. Neocons believe the ends justify the means, there's no place for proportionality, and acceptable losses and collateral damage are winning conditions. Conservatives should revere the beauty of God's creation, both its scale and its complexity. Whether you accept scientific consensuses or not, if you think God gave you the planet... why the fuck wouldn't you take care of it? I'm sure when Jesus comes back he'll give us a mulligan and fix everything we destroy, right? You don't need to be a hippy environmentalist to want clean soil, water and air for future generations. That's just considerate. I'm sure God places more value on cheap prices and stocks than the fucking world he loved enough to sacrifice his son for. What is God, a fuckin braindead librul?

I think of life and a desire to check corruption. I hate rap for the most part, I hate urban culture, and I dislike the ever-degrading state of the minority life style. And yet, for all the faults I see in the modern minority, I don't immediately jump at the chance to fellate the police when cops gun down a person of color. I know racism is real. It's over-stated by poverty pimps and race hustlers, but it doesn't mean that our system is wholly colorblind and altruistic. And even ignoring demographics altogether, there is a problem in my eyes with the ever-growing militarization of police. When people jump to a cop's defense after they've killed a human being, I die a little on the inside. Is every instance of a cop shooting someone an act of injustice? No, lots of people are scumbags. But should a conservative place his trust in a man merely because he wears a uniform and has a badge? I don't think so. More Americans have been killed since 9/11 by cops than by terrorists. Cops do heinous things, immoral things. They're just people. A conservative shouldn't look at a victim of a cop and immediately think 'thug'. I believe all life is precious, that there is often a different solution than killing. If I care about the lives of the unborn I must also care about those who were born and have much to lose to the sins of the state. A conservative must respect hierarchy and reject egalitarianism, but he must also see the humanity in his brothers no matter his appearance. I think it's immoral to perpetuate social strife because you identify with the winning team.

I think of what we've lost as a society. Neocons and progressives are two sides of the same coin. There's no substantive difference. The values of conservatism have been whitewashed by fierce nationalism, zionism, militarism and commercialism. The conservative has no recourse but to sulk in the emptiness of his forgotten philosophy. Perhaps those who consider themselves 'conservatives' need to reevaluate what that word means, and perhaps 'neocon' ought to be defined as 'kinda conservative at home, liberal everywhere else'. These are, of course, just my views.
I tried to respond to this last night but my browser was uncooperative. Your post really resonated and made me wonder about some of our definitions of right and left. It gave me a great deal to to think about. Thank you so much for your post.

[donttread]

If conservatism is about society then part of that ought to be conserving liberty in society over growing power in the government. That was the point of my comparing Buckley and Kirk.

Agree, both would be disgusted by modern sociacons and neocons.

No one om Washington with the exception of Rand Paul believes in or attempts to make law according to the BOR's as the package deal it was meant to be. Therefore none of them excepting Rand Paul uphold the Constitution

[Bob]

I tried to respond to this last night but my browser was uncooperative. Your post really resonated and made me wonder about some of our definitions of right and left. It gave me a great deal to to think about. Thank you so much for your post.


I took a lot away from the post as well. My problem is I have been where very bad government was imposed on the public. Here in the USA it is not all that bad yet. But the left is working on it. Neoconservatives need a new label. Neoliberals is more accurate.

Bush to defend what he did, tried to free human beings. Some thought it was wise and some were against him. But they still believed what he did was right and we know it because Obama does the same thing and Democrats approve it when done by Obama.

[Chris]

No one om Washington with the exception of Rand Paul believes in or attempts to make law according to the BOR's as the package deal it was meant to be. Therefore none of them excepting Rand Paul uphold the Constitution

And Rand's semi-libertarian campaign is on its last legs I hear.

[Bob]

http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/ten-conservative-principles/

This author lays it out very clearly.


Perhaps it would be well, most of the time, to use this word “conservative” as an adjective chiefly. For there exists no Model Conservative, and conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order.
The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.
In essence, the conservative person is simply one who finds the permanent things more pleasing than Chaos and Old Night. (Yet conservatives know, with Burke, that healthy “change is the means of our preservation.”) A people’s historic continuity of experience, says the conservative, offers a guide to policy far better than the abstract designs of coffee-house philosophers. But of course there is more to the conservative persuasion than this general attitude.
It is not possible to draw up a neat catalogue of conservatives’ convictions; nevertheless, I offer you, summarily, ten general principles; it seems safe to say that most conservatives would subscribe to most of these maxims. In various editions of my book The Conservative Mind I have listed certain canons of conservative thought—the list differing somewhat from edition to edition; in my anthology The Portable Conservative Reader I offer variations upon this theme. Now I present to you a summary of conservative assumptions differing somewhat from my canons in those two books of mine. In fine, the diversity of ways in which conservative views may find expression is itself proof that conservatism is no fixed ideology. What particular principles conservatives emphasize during any given time will vary with the circumstances and necessities of that era. The following ten articles of belief reflect the emphases of conservatives in America nowadays.


First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.

Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time.

Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.

Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.

Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked

Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.

Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.

Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society. The conservative is not opposed to social improvement, although he doubts whether there is any such force as a mystical Progress,

Missed
Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.

[Dr. Who]

I took a lot away from the post as well. My problem is I have been where very bad government was imposed on the public. Here in the USA it is not all that bad yet. But the left is working on it. Neoconservatives need a new label. Neoliberals is more accurate.

Bush to defend what he did, tried to free human beings. Some thought it was wise and some were against him. But they still believed what he did was right and we know it because Obama does the same thing and Democrats approve it when done by Obama.
Except that Bush represented the neocon ideology. Whom did he free? No one. All he did was remove any constraints on civil order. Anyone who has read anything about the ME knows that the western imposed borders on "countries" therein were not based on any consideration of the people who lived there but on preserving foreign interests. This pushed Shias, Sunnis and other cultural and religious groups into an uncomfortable detente that only functioned under despotic governments. In the meantime populations have grown and become more sophisticated, largely due to the internet and now reject the veritable western "droit du seigneur" and any governments that support that notion.

[Ethereal]

I would argue that that's not entirely relevant. Because I consider conservatism a philosophy about society and not a rigid political ideology. And while Adams was far from perfect, I would consider him conservative and he might not exactly be cosidered libertarian. Quite frankly, fusionism may have won elections in the short term but in the long term - and I can't prove this - it may very well have allowed the rise of the neocons and the extinction of traditionalism/paleoconservatism.

So it's great that libertarian ideology is liberty and market-centric. However that's not really the point of conservatism. They can go hand in hand, but perhaps classical liberalism/libertarianism needn't be conflated as a singular belief.

By building the "conservative movement" that gave us Reagan, Buckley also gave us the New Right. Kirkpatrick and all the others, "liberals mugged by reality". Neocons were a direct result of that success. Which probably stung more than anything for Buckley, knowing that he in a way gave birth to the death of his own movement.

Regardless of their views on legislation, I think Kirk and Buckley would join Buchanan in a show of disgust for neocons.

Adams kept America out of a war by adhering to the Washingtonian policy of neutrality. If Adams were President today, neo-cons would label him "weak" and an "appeaser" who will "invite attack on America".

[Bob]

Except that Bush represented the neocon ideology. Whom did he free? No one. All he did was remove any constraints on civil order. Anyone who has read anything about the ME knows that the western imposed borders on "countries" therein were not based on any consideration of the people who lived there but on preserving foreign interests. This pushed Shias, Sunnis and other cultural and religious groups into an uncomfortable detente that only functioned under despotic governments. In the meantime populations have grown and become more sophisticated, largely due to the internet and now reject the veritable western "droit du seigneur" and any governments that support that notion.

You keep calling them neocons. I am saying they rose from serious liberals and got a bit more modest in aims.

Bush freed two countries. Ahead of freeing both, he could not in any reasonable way know what would happen once freed. Bush did not attempt to change borders.

I would not laud Saddam Hussein as some peace keeper. He killed so many he should get no respect.

Iraq simply was not used to a parliament form of government. It will take time. We are trying to rush it is my view.

[Mister D]

The western powers stepped into the vacuum created by the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Like the Hapsburg domains, the Ottoman empire did not consist of neatly divided ethnic enclaves. The administration of the Ottoman state was pre-modern and I don't mean that in a negative way. What I mean is that the "Vilayets" as they were called, were administrative units more for Ottoman convenience than for the national aspirations of the inhabitants.

[Cigar]

The differences we see are not about conservative/progressive political philosophy, its political football....nothing matters except beating the other team. The extremes of left/right have gone so far its difficult to tell when one group stops and the other group starts.

They're like children, they think they should get their way all the time and they throw tantrums like little girls in a playground whenever they can't get their way.

It's hilarious to watch grown men cry like babies for 7 to 8 years.

[Chris]

They're like children, they think they should get their way all the time and they throw tantrums like little girls in a playground whenever they can't get their way.

It's hilarious to watch grown men cry like babies for 7 to 8 years.

They?

[Cigar]

They?

Who are we talking about?

Who is in the News?

Who is doing all the Interviews?

Yes ... THEY

[Chris]

http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/ten-conservative-principles/

This author lays it out very clearly.



First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.

Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time.

Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.

Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.

Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked

Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.

Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.

Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society. The conservative is not opposed to social improvement, although he doubts whether there is any such force as a mystical Progress,

Missed
Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.

Kirk was afraid of the word ideology, Buckley was not, as is evident in these comments (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_F._Buckley,_Jr.) on Bush: "I think Mr. Bush faces a singular problem best defined, I think, as the absence of effective conservative ideology — with the result that he ended up being very extravagant in domestic spending, extremely tolerant of excesses by Congress, and in respect of foreign policy, incapable of bringing together such forces as apparently were necessary to conclude the Iraq challenge. There will be no legacy for Mr. Bush. I don't believe his successor would re-enunciate the words he used in his second inaugural address because they were too ambitious. So therefore I think his legacy is indecipherable."

[Chris]

They're like children, they think they should get their way all the time and they throw tantrums like little girls in a playground whenever they can't get their way.

It's hilarious to watch grown men cry like babies for 7 to 8 years.


They?


Who are we talking about?

Who is in the News?

Who is doing all the Interviews?

Yes ... THEY

Your inflammatory description fits any ideology or, in your case, party.

[Bob]

Yes, today's conservatism is actually nothing more than selfishness, exactly like spoiled little children.

How can wanting all citizens be treated fair, be called selfish?

[Crepitus]

How can wanting all citizens be treated fair, be called selfish?
Since when do conservatives want everything to be fair?

[Chris]

Since when do conservatives want everything to be fair?

Isn't that liberal?

[Bob]

Except that Bush represented the neocon ideology. Whom did he free? No one. All he did was remove any constraints on civil order. Anyone who has read anything about the ME knows that the western imposed borders on "countries" therein were not based on any consideration of the people who lived there but on preserving foreign interests. This pushed Shias, Sunnis and other cultural and religious groups into an uncomfortable detente that only functioned under despotic governments. In the meantime populations have grown and become more sophisticated, largely due to the internet and now reject the veritable western "droit du seigneur" and any governments that support that notion.

Second comment by me.

It amazes me people forgot Bill Clinton and his waging wars. It's always Bush this/Bush that.

Though Clinton did nothing at all to help those in Rawanda, look what he did to Yugoslavia?

I don't recall the danger to the USA presented by Milosevic /Yugoslavia. Matter of fact, wasn't it Clinton engaged in war with Milosevic that produced the losses to the Serbians in their homeland known as Kosovo by them, Kosova by the Muslims? The Serbs were hunted by the Naxis and the Kosova people, Actually the Muslims in General were happy with Hitler and allied with the Nazis in Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia no longer exists due to the warring by the Muslims in Kosovo. So who did Clinton bomb? Not the Muslims, but the Serbs.

We have some politicians who get credited for perfect intelligence (Clinton) in their aggression (Yugoslavia, Iraq) yet when it came to Bush, the intelligence proved to be flawed, producing what we saw happen in Iraq.

Iraq was never intended to remain occupied by troops of the USA. Bush planned to get in, win and leave. General Tommy Franks had issued orders to withdraw. The media did a lousy job informing Americans what actually was happening.

When the news comes on today, I still see some news, and then the media bombardment of left wing ideology. They today use the term Chaos to describe the happenings in the House. They call republicans divided. But that should be normal, not special. There is no chaos. This is a change.

As to the history of the ME, that has long been well documented.

With the CIA, the FBI all there to give Bush the truth, did he actually get the truth? I think he got just what the two agencies were capable of giving him. I am sure that Kennedy went to the Bay of Pigs with the forces of Cuba believing in his intelligence. When Truman waged war in Korea, he trusted his intelligece. Even LBJ went to war with Vietnam accepting his intelligence.

Some fault Bush for wrong intelligence. But it was the same intelligence available to Bill Clinton and used by Clinton. I point to the public law signed by Clinton as to giving Saddam Hussein the boot. With that law on the Books, Bush acted on it is how i see this.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-105publ338/html/PLAW-105publ338.htm

[Cigar]

Your inflammatory description fits any ideology or, in your case, party.

I understand, it's embarrassing :laugh:

[Bob]

Since when do conservatives want everything to be fair?

Now if possible.

[Crepitus]

Isn't that liberal?
That's what I thought, but not according to Bob.

[Crepitus]

Now if possible.
So you're switching to a liberal viewpoint?

[donttread]

How can wanting all citizens be treated fair, be called selfish?

Because the super did not get super rich in a fair enviroment

[Chris]

I understand, it's embarrassing :laugh:

Well, now, I didn't mean for you to be embarrassed.

[Bob]

Because the super did not get super rich in a fair enviroment

Explain how Oprah Winfrey got so super rich and did so unfairly?

[Bob]

So you're switching to a liberal viewpoint?

Liberals are not fair.

[Crepitus]

Liberals are not fair.
Ah, I thought that was the whole point, liberals want everything to be fair, conservatives want the rich to get richer and fuck the poor and the needy.

[donttread]

Explain how Oprah Winfrey got so super rich and did so unfairly?

For every Oprah their are a 100 Paris Hilton's

[Bob]

Ah, I thought that was the whole point, liberals want everything to be fair, conservatives want the rich to get richer and fuck the poor and the needy.

Not really. The rich will get richer no matter what. But each of them is a citizen. As a citizen, they deserve to be treated fair. When I was a left winger, it was fuck the rich that they are jerks who deserve nothing.

Even though they hire us and make our lives better, fuck them. That is the liberal credo.

[Crepitus]

Not really. The rich will get richer no matter what. But each of them is a citizen. As a citizen, they deserve to be treated fair. When I was a left winger, it was fuck the rich that they are jerks who deserve nothing.

Even though they hire us and make our lives better, fuck them. That is the liberal credo.
Ah, So you're still with "the rich get richer and fuck the poor and the needy". That's a strange definition of fair.

[Bob]

For every Oprah their are a 100 Paris Hilton's

But I am talking of amassing a godzilla fortune ... explain to me why Oprah Winfrey sucks the big one.

[Bob]

Ah, So you're still with "the rich get richer and fuck the poor and the needy". That's a strange definition of fair.

I don't feel at all that way. The poor can get rich as Oprah Winfrey proves.

[Crepitus]

Explain how Oprah Winfrey got so super rich and did so unfairly?
She's an exception, not the rule. There are others too, but most of the super-rich inherited.

There is also the fact that once you have money, doors open for you. Starting with being able to pay your own accountant to find you all the loopholes and going right on up from there.

[Chris]

Ah, I thought that was the whole point, liberals want everything to be fair, conservatives want the rich to get richer and fuck the poor and the needy.

No, conservatives favor free over fair. E.g., free markets over fair, free trade over fair.

[donttread]

But I am talking of amassing a godzilla fortune ... explain to me why Oprah Winfrey sucks the big one.

Well at least she gathered her own fortune based upon our need for royalty to worship. But if she has children do you think they would have competed against your kids in a fair way?

[Crepitus]

No, conservatives favor free over fair. E.g., free markets over fair, free trade over fair.
Pretty much the same thing.

[Chris]

Pretty much the same thing.

No, the difference is between selfishness and self-interest. How does one serve one's self-interest but by serving other's self-interest? In order to generate wealth for myself I must create goods and services others value. Selfishness would be simply taking it, as in taking from some to give to others, iow, wealth redistribution, not wealth generation.

But we stray from the topic of what is conservatism.

[Bob]

She's an exception, not the rule. There are others too, but most of the super-rich inherited.

There is also the fact that once you have money, doors open for you. Starting with being able to pay your own accountant to find you all the loopholes and going right on up from there.

And that is how you say she did it unfairly?

Loopholes are our defense from Government. But it put every single one of them there.

[Crepitus]

And that is how you say she did it unfairly?

Loopholes are our defense from Government. But it put every single one of them there.
I didn't say she did it unfairly, I said she was an exception.

Loopholes are how you get out of paying your taxes.

[Bob]

Well at least she gathered her own fortune based upon our need for royalty to worship. But if she has children do you think they would have competed against your kids in a fair way?

I have a very different view of money than the left has. To me, money is a store of value. A benefit obtained for service, products and other things of value. If I hand my money to the rich, they gave me a thing I valued more than the money I gave to them.

Some attach emotion to money unless the person with the money is a well known left winger who is filthy rich. For them it seems to be different.

[Bob]

Well at least she gathered her own fortune based upon our need for royalty to worship. But if she has children do you think they would have competed against your kids in a fair way?

I don't see her as royalty. Fortunately my children are doing fine.

[Chris]

Money's just a medium of exchange. Money is not wealth. It has not intrinsic value other than to coin collectors.

[Bob]

I didn't say she did it unfairly, I said she was an exception.

Loopholes are how you get out of paying your taxes.

Okay

Having studied tax law a fair number of times, in formal classes, bear in mind your loopholes were put in by government. And so far, government has not seen fit to remove them.

So, do you blame the rich, or the politicans?

[donttread]

I have a very different view of money than the left has. To me, money is a store of value. A benefit obtained for service, products and other things of value. If I hand my money to the rich, they gave me a thing I valued more than the money I gave to them.

Some attach emotion to money unless the person with the money is a well known left winger who is filthy rich. For them it seems to be different.

But with each passing generation the super rich use that money to tilt the table in their favor

[Mister D]

Americans idealize the self-made man. We always have.

[Dr. Who]

Second comment by me.

It amazes me people forgot Bill Clinton and his waging wars. It's always Bush this/Bush that.

Though Clinton did nothing at all to help those in Rawanda, look what he did to Yugoslavia?

I don't recall the danger to the USA presented by Milosevic /Yugoslavia. Matter of fact, wasn't it Clinton engaged in war with Milosevic that produced the losses to the Serbians in their homeland known as Kosovo by them, Kosova by the Muslims? The Serbs were hunted by the Naxis and the Kosova people, Actually the Muslims in General were happy with Hitler and allied with the Nazis in Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia no longer exists due to the warring by the Muslims in Kosovo. So who did Clinton bomb? Not the Muslims, but the Serbs.

We have some politicians who get credited for perfect intelligence (Clinton) in their aggression (Yugoslavia, Iraq) yet when it came to Bush, the intelligence proved to be flawed, producing what we saw happen in Iraq.

Iraq was never intended to remain occupied by troops of the USA. Bush planned to get in, win and leave. General Tommy Franks had issued orders to withdraw. The media did a lousy job informing Americans what actually was happening.

When the news comes on today, I still see some news, and then the media bombardment of left wing ideology. They today use the term Chaos to describe the happenings in the House. They call republicans divided. But that should be normal, not special. There is no chaos. This is a change.

As to the history of the ME, that has long been well documented.

With the CIA, the FBI all there to give Bush the truth, did he actually get the truth? I think he got just what the two agencies were capable of giving him. I am sure that Kennedy went to the Bay of Pigs with the forces of Cuba believing in his intelligence. When Truman waged war in Korea, he trusted his intelligece. Even LBJ went to war with Vietnam accepting his intelligence.

Some fault Bush for wrong intelligence. But it was the same intelligence available to Bill Clinton and used by Clinton. I point to the public law signed by Clinton as to giving Saddam Hussein the boot. With that law on the Books, Bush acted on it is how i see this.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-105publ338/html/PLAW-105publ338.htm
They are all neocons.

[Chris]

They are all neocons.

Bush was also a sociocon, double whammy!

[Mister D]

What does it mean to be a social conservative?

[Chris]

What does it mean to be a social conservative?

See earlier post on Kirk v Buckley. A culture warrior like many liberals.

[Mister D]

See earlier post on Kirk v Buckley. A culture warrior like many liberals.

So it's just someone who believes that a nation's laws ought to reflect values of some kind?

[Chris]

So it's just someone who believes that a nation's laws ought to reflect values of some kind?

Their own.

[Mister D]

Their own.

Not the traditional values of a culture?

[Crepitus]

Okay

Having studied tax law a fair number of times, in formal classes, bear in mind your loopholes were put in by government. And so far, government has not seen fit to remove them.

So, do you blame the rich, or the politicans?
How many politicians are poor Bob?

[Chris]

Not the traditional values of a culture?

They tend to be kind of kooky, like Bachmann or Santorum or Huckabee or even Carson at times.

[Mister D]

They tend to be kind of kooky, like Bachmann or Santorum or Huckabee or even Carson at times.

That's one aspect of the American political scene that I find disturbing. Bachmann is kinda weird I agree but Santorum, Huckabee and Carson have strong convictions. We don't seem to like strong convictions about anything.

[Chris]

That's one aspect of the American political scene that I find disturbing. Bachmann is kinda weird I agree but Santorum, Huckabee and Carson have strong convictions. We don't seem to like strong convictions about anything.

I'm fine with their convictions, even Backmann's, I just don't want their personal values pushed politically anymore than I want those of culture warriors on the left.

As Buckley advocated, lead by example not legislation, executive order and judicial interpretation.

[Bob]

But with each passing generation the super rich use that money to tilt the table in their favor

It matters not, no more than if the Rich populated Japan or Ethiopia.

[Bob]

How many politicians are poor Bob?

A question i am not able to answer. Do you have the numbers? I assume you include all of them, city up to DC??

[Crepitus]

A question i am not able to answer. Do you have the numbers? I assume you include all of them, city up to DC??

City politicians don't get to vote for federal tax breaks Bob.

[donttread]

It matters not, no more than if the Rich populated Japan or Ethiopia.


Dude what?

[Bob]

City politicians don't get to vote for federal tax breaks Bob.

Tax breaks come at all levels of Government.

[Bob]

Dude what?

There is this unnatural desire on the part of Democrats to constantly blame the rich.

Imagine had Babe Ruth got into a hitting slump and blamed the rich team owner?

[Crepitus]

Tax breaks come at all levels of Government.
Yup and the vast majority of the time the ones at the lower levels are chicken feed.

[donttread]

There is this unnatural desire on the part of Democrats to constantly blame the rich.

Imagine had Babe Ruth got into a hitting slump and blamed the rich team owner?

The rich get richer by manipulating the politicians and the rules . For example congress being exempt from insider training laws until a couple of years ago or the accomodtions government has made for Wall Street. Etc

[Bob]

Yup and the vast majority of the time the ones at the lower levels are chicken feed.

You can't deny this. If you pay income taxes, chances are awesome your payment to DC is not in the millions of dollars yet the sole US Citizen only due to a larger income, pays them millions of dollars.

Naturally they seek to perfect an injustice and thus want tax breaks you simply do not need.

[Bob]

The rich get richer by manipulating the politicians and the rules . For example congress being exempt from insider training laws until a couple of years ago or the accomodtions government has made for Wall Street. Etc

No they don't. They try to hold onto their earnings that way though.

Wall street is a super vague term. It is the fodder of Democrats who think somebody got wronged despite those using Wall Street can indeed make money.

Anybody can invest with Wall st.

[Crepitus]

You can't deny this. If you pay income taxes, chances are awesome your payment to DC is not in the millions of dollars yet the sole US Citizen only due to a larger income, pays them millions of dollars.

Naturally they seek to perfect an injustice and thus want tax breaks you simply do not need.
What injustice? I pay a certain percentage of my income, he pays a similar percentage of his. Seems fair right?

Not according to conservatives.

"That's not fair!" Shout all the RWNJs. "A certain percentage of your income is $X,XXX and a similar percentage of his is $XXX,XXX. He's paying more than you and he shouldn't have to even though his $XXX,XXX affects him far less than your $X,XXX affects you."

Seriously, you prove my points for me sometimes.

[Dr. Who]

What does it mean to be a social conservative?This is how D. Robert Worley defines them in his book Orchestrating the Instruments of Power:
Neocons, theocons, and sociocons share a belief in the offensive and unilateral use of force to spread democracy. All share a belief in the use of force to defend Israel; theocons and sociocons consider it to be the religious obligation of a “Christian America.” All share a sense of supremacy reminiscent of the nineteenth century’s “white man’s burden.” These groups share a belief that they are authorized and obligated to dominion over others. All advocated the invasion of Iraq. They are well organized and vocal.

[Bob]

What injustice? I pay a certain percentage of my income, he pays a similar percentage of his. Seems fair right?

Not according to conservatives.

"That's not fair!" Shout all the RWNJs. "A certain percentage of your income is $X,XXX and a similar percentage of his is $XXX,XXX. He's paying more than you and he shouldn't have to even though his $XXX,XXX affects him far less than your $X,XXX affects you."

Seriously, you prove my points for me sometimes.

I see it vastly different.

If you stop at the gas station and find out that the rich pay the price for gasoline you pay, do you feel bad?

If that new sail boat is sold to you at the same price as to the rich, why would you mind.

Government is just one more commodity to purchase.

Each should pay the same sum to the dollar.

The advantage to us all it it limits Government.

What if you woke up tomorrow to learn the Feds just can't afford war?

A blessing to you or a curse?

[Crepitus]

I see it vastly different.

If you stop at the gas station and find out that the rich pay the price for gasoline you pay, do you feel bad?

If that new sail boat is sold to you at the same price as to the rich, why would you mind.

Government is just one more commodity to purchase.

Each should pay the same sum to the dollar.

The advantage to us all it it limits Government.

What if you woke up tomorrow to learn the Feds just can't afford war?

A blessing to you or a curse?
Not a commodity, they aren't selling you anything.

Taxes here and nearly everywhere else are based on percentages not absolute amounts.

[Bob]

This is how D. Robert Worley defines them in his book Orchestrating the Instruments of Power:





Neocons, theocons, and sociocons share a belief in the offensive and unilateral use of force to spread democracy. All share a belief in the use of force to defend Israel; theocons and sociocons consider it to be the religious obligation of a “Christian America.” All share a sense of supremacy reminiscent of the nineteenth century’s “white man’s burden.” These groups share a belief that they are authorized and obligated to dominion over others. All advocated the invasion of Irag. They are well organized and vocal.


Have you not noticed that those who don't like Neocons do not define them the same way neocons define themselves. That the left wingers have just invented from blank paper all kinds of things to demonize neocons. Even men who clearly are not neocons, get called neocons. Supposedly this to demonize them.

President Thomas Jefferson wanted to expand the then USA by the Louisiana purchase. But what if the purchase was not to be made? I believe if not Jefferson, a different president would have waged war for the territory.

President Polk is a good example of a man who went to war over more land. Was he too a neocon?

[Bob]

Not a commodity, they aren't selling you anything.

Taxes here and nearly everywhere else are based on percentages not absolute amounts.

Yes you get sold. For your money you want a fair return. Bridges, roads and other things are just commodities in effect.

I argue the percentage is why we find ourselves so committed to a staggering national debt. A debt no democrat even wants paid off. They plan on endless borrowing. As a way to disguise the higher taxes to all of us.

We need to demand Government treats each human as equals and each pays a set sum. I think the Feds just might budget for a change.

[Chris]

Arnold Kling's three-axes ideological model lays things out this way:

http://i.snag.gy/8uP2C.jpg

[Chris]

Jonathan Haidt categorizes liberals and conservative according to values they hold: "Liberals’ value – Harm/Care high, then Fairness/Reciprocity, then a big drop to Authority/Respect and In-group/Loyalty, then least Purity/Sanctity. Conservatives’ value – Harm/Care lower than liberals but place it at the top of their lists as well. Authority is a close second followed closely by In-group/Loyalty, and Purity/Sancitity, with Fairness/Reciprocity at the bottom." @ http://www.ethicsdefined.org/the-problem-with-morality/conservatives-vs-liberals/

Adding libertarians: "conservatives rely on all six foundations equally in making moral judgments, liberals favor care, liberty, and fairness, and were often indifferent to concerns of sanctity, loyalty, and authority. Libertarians, relying primarily on the liberty foundation, had the smallest moral domain of all...." @ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/26/righteous-mind-author-haidt-conservatives-have-bro/?page=all

[Mister D]

This is how D. Robert Worley defines them in his book Orchestrating the Instruments of Power:

This is as apt a description of the FDR administration as it is of the last few administrations but I think Mr. Worley only meant to apply this to the contemporary political opposition.

[Dr. Who]

Have you not noticed that those who don't like Neocons do not define them the same way neocons define themselves. That the left wingers have just invented from blank paper all kinds of things to demonize neocons. Even men who clearly are not neocons, get called neocons. Supposedly this to demonize them.

President Thomas Jefferson wanted to expand the then USA by the Louisiana purchase. But what if the purchase was not to be made? I believe if not Jefferson, a different president would have waged war for the territory.

President Polk is a good example of a man who went to war over more land. Was he too a neocon?
The notion of "pre-emptive war" is one associated with the term neocon.

Polk wrote in his diary:

“I stated to the cabinet that up to this time as they knew, we had heard of no open act of aggression by the Mexican army, but that the danger was imminent that such acts would be committed. I said that in my opinion we had ample cause of war.”

Ulysses S. Grant, who served in the 1846-1848 Mexican-American War, wrote in his memoirs:

“The presence of United States troops on the edge of the disputed territory furthest from the Mexican settlements, was not sufficient to provoke hostilities. We were sent to provoke a fight, but it was essential that Mexico should commence it. I was very doubtful whether Congress would declare war; but if Mexico should attack our troops, the Executive (Polk) could announce, ‘Whereas war exist by the acts of, etc.’ and prosecute the contest with vigor.”

If the shoe fits...

[Bob]

The notion of "pre-emptive war" is one associated with the term neocon.

Polk wrote in his diary:

“I stated to the cabinet that up to this time as they knew, we had heard of no open act of aggression by the Mexican army, but that the danger was imminent that such acts would be committed. I said that in my opinion we had ample cause of war.”

Ulysses S. Grant, who served in the 1846-1848 Mexican-American War, wrote in his memoirs:

“The presence of United States troops on the edge of the disputed territory furthest from the Mexican settlements, was not sufficient to provoke hostilities. We were sent to provoke a fight, but it was essential that Mexico should commence it. I was very doubtful whether Congress would declare war; but if Mexico should attack our troops, the Executive (Polk) could announce, ‘Whereas war exist by the acts of, etc.’ and prosecute the contest with vigor.”

If the shoe fits...

Have you seriously read the best book on Neocons? By Irving Kristol?

Maybe you can tell me what page of his book he makes such claims.

A true Neocon was formerly a communist type person. They really did believe in Communism. They would vote for democrats vs republicans since republicans don't have such leanings.

[Chris]

The notion of "pre-emptive war" is one associated with the term neocon.

Polk wrote in his diary:

“I stated to the cabinet that up to this time as they knew, we had heard of no open act of aggression by the Mexican army, but that the danger was imminent that such acts would be committed. I said that in my opinion we had ample cause of war.”

Ulysses S. Grant, who served in the 1846-1848 Mexican-American War, wrote in his memoirs:

“The presence of United States troops on the edge of the disputed territory furthest from the Mexican settlements, was not sufficient to provoke hostilities. We were sent to provoke a fight, but it was essential that Mexico should commence it. I was very doubtful whether Congress would declare war; but if Mexico should attack our troops, the Executive (Polk) could announce, ‘Whereas war exist by the acts of, etc.’ and prosecute the contest with vigor.”

If the shoe fits...



I think a better word would be interventionist, though indeed neocons are today associated with interventionism.

[Dr. Who]

This is as apt a description of the FDR administration as it is of the last few administrations but I think Mr. Worley only meant to apply this to the contemporary political opposition.
Since the book discusses America's national security, primarily from WWII onward, Worley's definitions may tend to define the characteristics of the current political players.

[Crepitus]

Yes you get sold. For your money you want a fair return. Bridges, roads and other things are just commodities in effect.

I argue the percentage is why we find ourselves so committed to a staggering national debt. A debt no democrat even wants paid off. They plan on endless borrowing. As a way to disguise the higher taxes to all of us.

We need to demand Government treats each human as equals and each pays a set sum. I think the Feds just might budget for a change.
I agree, if there weren't so many loopholes for the wealthy people to use to avoid paying the same percentage as everyone else we probably wouldn't be in anywhere near as much debt.

[Bob]

I agree, if there weren't so many loopholes for the wealthy people to use to avoid paying the same percentage as everyone else we probably wouldn't be in anywhere near as much debt.

That is not close to what I said.

Actually, were you to simply confiscate the total income of the rich, it would only last this country a couple of months of paying the bills. Guess who must come up with the rest of the money?

Most of you complaining over the rich would hate paying the taxes they all pay.

Even with loopholes, they get the shaft.

All because they earn more, not that it is fair or just, simply they have more cash.

So, the natural thief wants more of their cash.

Democrats are natural born thieves as I see it and I was one for 42 years.

Never will you find a Democrat finding finding fault with government spending. It is like a light bulb is to insects, high taxes amuses them and draws them in. Some Democrat sold them on this false notion of the rich being evil sons of bitches deserving to be robbed.

Unless one of them is rich, such as Oprah Winfrey. Then she is cool.

[Dr. Who]

I think a better word would be interventionist, though indeed neocons are today associated with interventionism.
I would have also included the term imperialist in the case of Polk, although even that word can be loosely used to describe spreading democracy by force in the case of Bush et al.

[Bob]

I would have also included the term imperialist in the case of Polk, although even that word can be loosely used to describe spreading democracy by force in the case of Bush et al.

You must not keep forgetting Bill Clinton. Before trashing Bush again, look up the record of our Bill Clinton.

Clinton waged war a hell of a lot.

Bush to his credit had no plan to conquer either Afghanistan nor Iraq to keep.

What is Obama doing right now? Waging war to get rid of Assad of Syria. And look at the way Libya turned out when Obama tried to conceal it was our war planes and blamed the UN and France on the Libya war making by the USA. Neocon? Snort ... Obama by action is one.

[Chris]

I would have also included the term imperialist in the case of Polk, although even that word can be loosely used to describe spreading democracy by force in the case of Bush et al.

Expansionist is another term could be used, today expanding democracy (Bush) or humanitarianism (Obama).


Why does an ideological question about conservatism drift into topical politics?

[Dr. Who]

You must not keep forgetting Bill Clinton. Before trashing Bush again, look up the record of our Bill Clinton.

Clinton waged war a hell of a lot.

Bush to his credit had no plan to conquer either Afghanistan nor Iraq to keep.

What is Obama doing right now? Waging war to get rid of Assad of Syria. And look at the way Libya turned out when Obama tried to conceal it was our war planes and blamed the UN and France on the Libya war making by the USA. Neocon? Snort ... Obama by action is one.
I said Bush et al. I'm starting from G.H. Bush onward. They have all been neocons regardless of political affiliation.

[Chris]

I was going to ask: Ignoring modern day negative connotations for ideology, I see conservatism, like liberalism, as an ideology, albeit a loosely structured system of ideas--unlike libertarianism, btw. But I see others say it's not an ideology. Thoughts?

[Dr. Who]

Expansionist is another term could be used, today expanding democracy (Bush) or humanitarianism (Obama).


Why does an ideological question about conservatism drift into topical politics?
Definitions require examples?

[Chris]

Definitions require examples?

True, but it seems discussion drifts toward equating Dems with liberalism and Reps with conservative.

[Bob]

I said Bush et al. I'm starting from G.H. Bush onward. They have all been neocons regardless of political affiliation.

I urge you to get Irving Kristol's fine book that he himself authored. He explains neocons far better than any left winger ever can.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0028740211?keywords=irving%20kristol&qid=1444493713&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1

http://thepoliticalforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=13009&stc=1

[Chris]

Neocons are liberals mugged by reality. All you need to know.

[Dr. Who]

I was going to ask: Ignoring modern day negative connotations for ideology, I see conservatism, like liberalism, as an ideology, albeit a loosely structured system of ideas--unlike libertarianism, btw. But I see others say it's not an ideology. Thoughts?
I think that the term conservative or liberal is often conflated with politics. While conservative is a way of thinking about life, a mind-set if you will, it is not political per se, but does influence how one views same. However people who are politically Republican are not necessarily conservative thinkers. Concepts like aggressive intervention into the affairs of other people or other countries is the opposite of conservatism. Conservative thought created an isolationist America.

[Crepitus]

That is not close to what I said.

Actually, were you to simply confiscate the total income of the rich, it would only last this country a couple of months of paying the bills. Guess who must come up with the rest of the money?

Most of you complaining over the rich would hate paying the taxes they all pay.

Even with loopholes, they get the shaft.

All because they earn more, not that it is fair or just, simply they have more cash.

So, the natural thief wants more of their cash.

Democrats are natural born thieves as I see it and I was one for 42 years.

Never will you find a Democrat finding finding fault with government spending. It is like a light bulb is to insects, high taxes amuses them and draws them in. Some Democrat sold them on this false notion of the rich being evil sons of bitches deserving to be robbed.

Unless one of them is rich, such as Oprah Winfrey. Then she is cool.
They may pay more in absolute terms, but they pat less as a percentage of income.

Fuck Opra, I don't know why you keep bringing her up.

[Bob]

They may pay more in absolute terms, but they pat less as a percentage of income.

Fuck Opra, I don't know why you keep bringing her up.

She is a great example of the super rich. She did not inherit it. She somehow gobbled up an enormous fortune over a few years.

She is a Democrat icon.

Percentage does not matter to me except it needs to be equal in dollars for every citizen.

There is nothing like an angry public with the congress were we all to pay equal amounts.

i think Government would have to curtail spending. Actually I am certain we no longer would suffer 3.5 trillion dollar spending nor slide deeper and deeper in debt.

My plan puts the country back onto sound fiscal policies.

[Crepitus]

She is a great example of the super rich. She did not inherit it. She somehow gobbled up an enormous fortune over a few years.

She is a Democrat icon.

Percentage does not matter to me except it needs to be equal in dollars for every citizen.

There is nothing like an angry public with the congress were we all to pay equal amounts.

i think Government would have to curtail spending. Actually I am certain we no longer would suffer 3.5 trillion dollar spending nor slide deeper and deeper in debt.

My plan puts the country back onto sound fiscal policies.
Your plan finishes off the middle class and dooms us all to serfdom.

[Bob]

Your plan finishes off the middle class and dooms us all to serfdom.

Having this country free of national debt harms?

Explain please.

[donttread]

Your plan finishes off the middle class and dooms us all to serfdom.


10% across the board cuts in federal spending per year except SS until the budget is balanced