Hey Repubs....

[George Gervin's Afro]

The only war I would participate in would be one against Progressives.

And you be the first on my list to meet when that happens.

[mogrovejo]

Hmm... the OP question is kind of bizarre (since when conservatives blindly follow the government to go to war? Now that the left suddenly discovered that conservatives can be blamed for the assassination of Kennedy, I guess they'll also discovered that conservatives are responsible for the I World War, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Vietnam War, the war in Yugoslavia, Somalia, etc., etc.), but on its base lies an interesting question.

However, I'm afraid it's far from being ground-breaking. For example, John Locke answered it more than 300 years ago. I'd recommend the first 20 pages of the Second Teatrise.

[Purple & Gold]

Anyone can see corruption is not limited to one party. It's definitely a politician by politician basis. And even if it isn't, history shows that both parties seem to get their time in near complete control, so what happens when that party you do not trust inherits all that power you gave that party you trusted?


It's incredibly shortsighted. Party loyalists of both sides are the biggest political idiots in this country. You guys really do put your party over your country. And all those parties are are politicial money making devices and special interests under the mask of governance. I never look at what the government says it intends to happen from it's actions, I always look at what my own insight and history say will happen...it never matters what the government says to me. It is run politicians and their primary skill is not giving a straight answer.

Is this really whottt? Thought provoking and unbiased?? I don't believe it. Probably the smartest thing I've seen from a repub here.

[Spursfan092120]

I don't claim to speak for Republicans but I definitely know the US blows the out of a country a of a lot more efficiently than it runs it's beaurocracy. Get ing serious.

Now my question, how come you guys completely distrust the motivations of the Bush admin and completely trust the motivations of the Obama admin?


It'a not so much that you guys completely distrust one side that bothers me as it is you guys completely trust the other side. Neither side is deserving of blind trust. How come you guys cry abuse of power by the Republiucan Bush Admin but have no problems ceding power to the Democratic Obama admin, never realizing that one day that power will again be in the hands of the Republcians.

If the logic is that Republicans are untrustworthy and corrupt money grubbers, that means if they are ever swept into power again they will be in charge of that health care program.


Those of you that are that way are fools. Anyone can see corruption is not limited to one party. It's definitely a politician by politician basis. And even if it isn't, history shows that both parties seem to get their time in near complete control, so what happens when that party you do not trust inherits all that power you gave that party you trusted?


It's incredibly shortsighted. Party loyalists of both sides are the biggest political idiots in this country. You guys really do put your party over your country. And all those parties are are politicial money making devices and special interests under the mask of governance. I never look at what the government says it intends to happen from it's actions, I always look at what my own insight and history say will happen...it never matters what the government says to me. It is run politicians and their primary skill is not giving a straight answer.

I'm a conservative..but above all, I'm an American..I don't blindly follow anyone...or anything..I see the mistakes Bush made, just like I see the mistakes Obama is already making. It's just sad to me that there are so many double standards in this country...

[Obstructed_View]

How come you follow the government blindly when they tell you who we should go to war with even if unattacked, but when it comes to health care or anything else domestically you think the government can't even manage a local liquor store. I have a hard time following that logic.

Given the oversimplicity and ignorance in your question, I have no problem believing you have a hard time following logic, as I'm sure you wouldn't listen to a reasonable attempt to correct your facts while trying to answer your question.

In the face of such rhetorical self-aggrandizing, I guess the best thing to do is wonder aloud why you'd think a government that invades sovereign nations under false pretenses (since that's what you seem to believe) is suddenly trustworthy and competent to take over a large part of the domestic economy with a bill written in secret. When exactly did it become a different government? The overwhelming majority of it is exactly the same as it was five years ago.

[Purple & Gold]

Given the oversimplicity and ignorance in your question, I have no problem believing you have a hard time following logic, as I'm sure you wouldn't listen to a reasonable attempt to correct your facts while trying to answer your question.

In the face of such rhetorical self-aggrandizing, I guess the best thing to do is wonder aloud why you'd think a government that invades sovereign nations under false pretenses (since that's what you seem to believe) is suddenly trustworthy and competent to take over a large part of the domestic economy with a bill written in secret. When exactly did it become a different government? The overwhelming majority of it is exactly the same as it was five years ago.

To answer your question without your bull self serving and spell it out for you is that their is a difference between war and health care. One leads to the loss of life (always) and the other leads to the loss of tax dollars (maybe). Since I know so many "conservatives" only care about their taxes and not the loss of life I'm not surprised you would try to paint war and health care in the same light with the same consequences.

[florige]

Is this really whottt? Thought provoking and unbiased?? I don't believe it. Probably the smartest thing I've seen from a repub here.

I don't think Whottt is Repub. He just doesn't agree with Obama and his policies.

[Obstructed_View]

To answer your question without your bull self serving and spell it out for you is that their is a difference between war and health care. One leads to the loss of life (always) and the other leads to the loss of tax dollars (maybe). Since I know so many "conservatives" only care about their taxes and not the loss of life I'm not surprised you would try to paint war and health care in the same light with the same consequences.

I hate to break it to you, princess, but government health care is pretty likely to kill more Americans and cost more money than Operation Iraqi Freedom has.

BTW, I'm not the one who brought up war and health care. You might pay attention to what you type.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

I think this discussion points us to a fundamental truth regarding the nature of conservatism.

Conservatism and Liberalism, if we are to break them down in reference to their function as historical indicators, are little more than terms dealing with one's relationship with the status quo.

If we look back at most of the great thinkers in human history, we notice that during their own time they were considered liberals. This is not to say that the ideological positions authored by historical actors will remain liberal as time passes, but instead it shows that actors are judged on a context based of reality in terms of time and location, i.e. what we know and when/how we know it.

In other words a conservative is, by nature, a defender of the status quo and all of its complexities. Given the fact that society has a natural tendency to progress, a fact that is recognized by all in some form or another, it becomes difficult for a conservative to balance a preference for the status quo with the knowledge that his or her position will be looked upon differently by proceeding generations. What this means is that we can look to the position of the conservative in our present time and location and acknowledge that at some point in the future this position will generally be accepted as false, and the position of today's liberal will become a conservative principle.

How this manifests itself in terms of a conservative ideology is truly an amazing human phenomenon, because conservatism allows us to see exactly how comfortable the human mind can be with contradiction or paradox. A conservative, whether implicitly or explicitly, acknowledges that the world is changing, that the 'truth' of today is being challenged by the forces that shape tomorrow, and this reality is an uncomfortable one. For this reason the conservative must acknowledge, in some function, that there are no precise ways to project a world view that is consistent with the past on a society that is constantly changing, and for this reason the conservative makes no serious attempt to describe his or her ideal society in pragmatic, systematic ways. The conservative chooses to default to rhetorical constructions, or political narratives, that are dependent on hypothetical situations instead of real world examples.

This is where we can see the function of contradiction in terms of conservative ideology. Because the conservative must default to a position that does not exist today, but instead is the product of a nostalgic remembrance of the past, the conservative must conceive of reality as a futuristic, quasi-utopic place that allows the incompatibility of their ideology to function correctly in a world that does not operate within these boundaries.

The conservative is comfortable with contradiction because he or she must implicitly acknowledge that the world cannot function as he or she would like, while explicitly arguing on behalf of his or her ideology anyway.

[spursncowboys]

So who exactly where the people of a "conservative mindset" following if it wasn't the government. I don't know many people of a "conservative mindset" that aren't part of the government (and even those in the government) that actually went to Iraq to look for WMD's before we went in.

Sean Penn?

[spursncowboys]

I think this discussion points us to a fundamental truth regarding the nature of conservatism.

Conservatism and Liberalism, if we are to break them down in reference to their function as historical indicators, are little more than terms dealing with one's relationship with the status quo.

If we look back at most of the great thinkers in human history, we notice that during their own time they were considered liberals. This is not to say that the ideological positions authored by historical actors will remain liberal as time passes, but instead it shows that actors are judged on a context based of reality in terms of time and location, i.e. what we know and when/how we know it.
In other words a conservative is, by nature, a defender of the status quo and all of its complexities. Given the fact that society has a natural tendency to progress, a fact that is recognized by all in some form or another, it becomes difficult for a conservative to balance a preference for the status quo with the knowledge that his or her position will be looked upon differently by proceeding generations. What this means is that we can look to the position of the conservative in our present time and location and acknowledge that at some point in the future this position will generally be accepted as false, and the position of today's liberal will become a conservative principle.

How this manifests itself in terms of a conservative ideology is truly an amazing human phenomenon, because conservatism allows us to see exactly how comfortable the human mind can be with contradiction or paradox. A conservative, whether implicitly or explicitly, acknowledges that the world is changing, that the 'truth' of today is being challenged by the forces that shape tomorrow, and this reality is an uncomfortable one. For this reason the conservative must acknowledge, in some function, that there are no precise ways to project a world view that is consistent with the past on a society that is constantly changing, and for this reason the conservative makes no serious attempt to describe his or her ideal society in pragmatic, systematic ways. The conservative chooses to default to rhetorical constructions, or political narratives, that are dependent on hypothetical situations instead of real world examples.

This is where we can see the function of contradiction in terms of conservative ideology. Because the conservative must default to a position that does not exist today, but instead is the product of a nostalgic remembrance of the past, the conservative must conceive of reality as a futuristic, quasi-utopic place that allows the incompatibility of their ideology to function correctly in a world that does not operate within these boundaries.

The conservative is comfortable with contradiction because he or she must implicitly acknowledge that the world cannot function as he or she would like, while explicitly arguing on behalf of his or her ideology anyway.

Liberalism from the 17th to 19th century would be considered closer towards today's conservative. It wasn't until communism came that modern liberalism became a blend of socialism and democracy. How is making more people reliant on government money progressing a society?
I completely disagree with the idea that conservatives are for the status quo. Conservatives are against a Keynsian economic model. That definitely against status quo. Conservatives think the status quo in taxes, health care, public schools, govt. beurocracy.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Liberalism from the 17th to 19th century would be considered closer towards today's conservative.

In response I offer:

If we look back at most of the great thinkers in human history, we notice that during their own time they were considered liberals. This is not to say that the ideological positions authored by historical actors will remain liberal as time passes, but instead it shows that actors are judged on a context based of reality in terms of time and location, i.e. what we know and when/how we know it.

and

What this means is that we can look to the position of the conservative in our present time and location and acknowledge that at some point in the future this position will generally be accepted as false, and the position of today's liberal will become a conservative principle.

It wasn't until communism came that modern liberalism became a blend of socialism and democracy. How is making more people reliant on government money progressing a society?

1. You can not conflate communism with a socialist democracy, the two terms are in direct opposition to one another.

2. Modern liberalism evolved in response to the imperfections of the free market system. Things like regulatory reform, social welfare/saftey net programs, and public education arose from the need to protect society from unstable market oscillations and volatility.

3. Government creates, ensure, and regulates money. Without government money would not exist. In this way we are always dependent upon government money. Government assistance is a progression because it is a recognition of the fact that capitalism, in its purest form, is a profit driven enterprise that does two things: 1st, it attempts to provide the fewest services possible while charging the highest possible rate (health care), and 2nd, it seeks to eliminate compe ion in order to consolidate wealth into the fewest possible locations (monopolies). The compe ion factor of capitalism ensures that there will always be some aspect of society that is unemployed, and the profit motive ensures that consumers will always be vulnerable to unfettered market accesses.

and finally

4.

A conservative, whether implicitly or explicitly, acknowledges that the world is changing, that the 'truth' of today is being challenged by the forces that shape tomorrow, and this reality is an uncomfortable one.

I completely disagree with the idea that conservatives are for the status quo. Conservatives are against a Keynsian economic model. That definitely against status quo.

In response:

the conservative must default to a position that does not exist today, but instead is the product of a nostalgic remembrance of the past, the conservative must conceive of reality as a futuristic, quasi-utopic place that allows the incompatibility of their ideology to function correctly in a world that does not operate within these boundaries.

Also, as an example of this last point let's examine this idea "Conservatives are against a Keynsian economic model. That definitely against status quo."

1. Assuming that the Keynsian economic model is the full embodiment of the status quo, in what ways could we abandon it without devastating the entire economy? Could we stop spending billions on public infrastructure? How about dismantling the military industrial complex? How about allowing the financial system to overheat to the point of systemic meltdown?

2. None of these manifestations of the Keynsian model are easily removed from a modern, mixed economy, and the result of doing so would place the United States somewhere between the early to mid 19th century--in other words, we would become a third world nation.

For this reason the conservative must acknowledge, in some function, that there are no precise ways to project a world view that is consistent with the past on a society that is constantly changing, and for this reason the conservative makes no serious attempt to describe his or her ideal society in pragmatic, systematic ways.

and

The conservative chooses to default to rhetorical constructions, or political narratives, that are dependent on hypothetical situations instead of real world examples.

Finally,

Conservatives think the status quo in taxes, health care, public schools, govt. beurocracy.

Because the conservative must default to a position that does not exist today, but instead is the product of a nostalgic remembrance of the past, the conservative must conceive of reality as a futuristic, quasi-utopic place that allows the incompatibility of their ideology to function correctly in a world that does not operate within these boundaries.

How far back do we have to go to get to a place when none of these things had any interaction with government, and what would that mean?

What would the world look like, and how could it be an improvement over the world with these things?

For this reason the conservative must acknowledge, in some function, that there are no precise ways to project a world view that is consistent with the past on a society that is constantly changing, and for this reason the conservative makes no serious attempt to describe his or her ideal society in pragmatic, systematic ways.

[Purple & Gold]

I hate to break it to you, princess, but government health care is pretty likely to kill more Americans and cost more money than Operation Iraqi Freedom has.

Ohhhh really?? So you're saying the switch from our current health care system to government health care will kill more Americans then the Iraq war?? Are you ing serious man?? If anything it will save lives with more people having health care. Why the you think people want it. Ohhh and I like how you conveniently forgot to mention the loss of Iraqi life. Like if it didn't matter.

BTW, I'm not the one who brought up war and health care. You might pay attention to what you type.

You might want to read the first post again.....

[Purple & Gold]

Sean Penn?

Are you really a cav scout?

[boutons_deux]

"government health care"

You Lie!

no one's talking about govt health care, only govt health insurance.

For-profit health care already murders 90K people PER YEAR, with avoidable medical errors.

[spursncowboys]

Are you really a cav scout?

yes

[Purple & Gold]

Well sadly you're making us look bad so STFU

[spursncowboys]

RobtoDun: Please define Liberal. Because what I was trying to say is that all the basic ideas that liberals had (classical and modern) are the basic ideas of conservatives. Therefore your premise makes no sense because you would just be misusing words. If you are using the word liberal to mean the socialist liberals than your premise holds no water since socialism in all forms have not been around long enough to know if it works.
The fact is social liberal ideas have never worked.

the conservative must default to a position that does not exist today, but instead is the product of a nostalgic remembrance of the past, the conservative must conceive of reality as a futuristic, quasi-utopic place that allows the incompatibility of their ideology to function correctly in a world that does not operate within these boundaries.

This is the definition of todays progressive liberal.

[spursncowboys]

Well sadly you're making us look bad so STFU

I think you need to reread your beginning post.

[hope4dopes]

Is this really whottt? Thought provoking and unbiased?? I don't believe it. Probably the smartest thing I've seen from a repub here.

Hey can you tell me how come nearly all the liberal democrats voted to go to war also.

[Purple & Gold]

Hey can you tell me how come nearly all the liberal democrats voted to go to war also.

Because they are sheep and only cared about votes. A sad time for the Democratic party.

[Purple & Gold]

I think you need to reread your beginning post.

I think you need to STFU. And LOL @ you feeling the need to have to put down you were a cav scout under your name. Do you think it makes your opinion on foreign policy more valid?

[spursncowboys]

I think you need to STFU. And LOL @ you feeling the need to have to put down you were a cav scout under your name. Do you think it makes your opinion on foreign policy more valid?

You're like a little kid. Your topic is ridiculous and your comments make absolutely no sense. I put it there. Why not? You want to ask me questions having nothing to do with this forum, PM me or make a topic about it. Fckin idiot.
Oh and good job with the LOL, your not texting though hero.

[spursncowboys]

So who exactly where the people of a "conservative mindset" following if it wasn't the government. I don't know many people of a "conservative mindset" that aren't part of the government (and even those in the government) that actually went to Iraq to look for WMD's before we went in.

Who went it to look for WMD's?
Who said it was a slam dunk?
How many Presidents and Congressman said Saddam had WMDs?
How many country's intel thought they had WMD?
What did you watch a M. Moore movie and decide to regurgitate what he said? Talk about sheep, you're more of a lemming.

[angrydude]

How come you follow the government blindly when they tell you who we should go to war with even if unattacked, but when it comes to health care or anything else domestically you think the government can't even manage a local liquor store. I have a hard time following that logic.

self-preservation