• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Conservatives Are Standing on the Wrong Side of History

Sorry, but BHO began his first term with full control of both House and Senate, and retained a majority in both until the 2010 elections. Thereafter, he had every opportunity to succeed; he's not the first POTUS to deal with opposition control of part of the legislature. If BHO did less preening and whining, and more political cultivating, he'd have done better.

:agree: He would also do well to remember that he is expected to represent all the people of this Country, and not to refer to half of them as "enemies." Some of those "enemies"did vote for him!

Good evening, Jack. :2wave:
 
:agree: He would also do well to remember that he is expected to represent all the people of this Country, and not to refer to half of them as "enemies." Some of those "enemies"did vote for him!

Good evening, Jack. :2wave:

Good evening, Polgara.:2wave:

We're waiting at the gate at Indy airport, returning from 45th high school class reunion.:peace
 
Good evening, Polgara.:2wave:

We're waiting at the gate at Indy airport, returning from 45th high school class reunion.:peace

It's gotta be sad, and shocking, to see how many of them have aged, poor things. :mrgreen:
 
The bases in Afghanistan and Iraq are obviously part of the war cost, but you would be deeply surprised how close are the figures for peacetime/wartime disability claims and peacetime/wartime equipment turnover and replacement.:peace

Well, I'm sorry, but I can't believe that when surgery and prosthetics and occupational and physical therapy (and associated equipment) costs are not much higher than in peacetime, given the tens of thousands of combat-wounded (including all those who lost limbs)...and this is not including the present and particularly the future costs of hundreds of thousands of PTSD cases.

and then there's the costs of all the military contractor civilians in the war zone as well - and we can't forget supplies - gasoline costs $100-$600 per gallon in theater, so that adds up too.
 
Sorry, but BHO began his first term with full control of both House and Senate, and retained a majority in both until the 2010 elections. Thereafter, he had every opportunity to succeed; he's not the first POTUS to deal with opposition control of part of the legislature. If BHO did less preening and whining, and more political cultivating, he'd have done better.

And as I pointed out to you before, we lost the supermajority in the Senate precisely 72 in-session days after his first inauguration - from then on, the Republicans in the Senate filibustered bills at a greater rate than at any point in American history - and in order to break the filibuster, we HAD to have at least one Republican vote...which all too often didn't come, or if it did, came with a very heavy price.

So please don't give me the excuse of us having the majorities in both houses, because without that supermajority in the Senate, NOTHING could get done unless the Republicans agreed to it.
 
"Conservatives Are Standing on the Wrong Side of History"

Despite all the noise religious and Marxist mystics make on the topic, "History" has no "wrong" or "right" sides, or any particular direction. History is simply what has happened.

We may perceive new things, things gaining strength and popularity as superior, but it would be useful to recall that at some relatively recent point the totalitarian monstrosities of Nazism and Communism were also viewed as the unstoppable "waves of future". Change is good, except when it is bad - or worse than bad.

Where's nothing especially wrong - or right - about the conservative attitude per se; it all depends on what kind of change is being resisted, no?

Personally, not being a conservative at all -neither ideologically nor "psychologically" - I am mostly opposed to the current "progressive" agenda - in the health care area particularly. Not because I think that the status quo is great (it is a disaster), but because what they seem to be advocating (be it the hideous Obamacare or a mindless copy of the NHS) is even worse, in my honest opinion.

Should I feel uncomfortable about not joining the enthusiastic Young Lemmings in their march toward the Bridge to the Future? Don't think so. They see a bridge, I see only a slippery cliff. We've got what we've got; I have to trust my own eyes and my modest reasoning abilities.
 
Last edited:
history will show

Not because I think that the status quo is great (it is a disaster),.
Imagine whirrled peas?
The situation we currently find ourselves in is a direct result of government meddling in the Mixed Economy
of course the solution is even greater government control. If you were pressed to assign a date to the death
of capitalism in this country, what would you pick.

There were many stab wounds, gunshots and blunt force traumas but what constituted the fatal blow?


2nbrbeg.jpg
 
Re: history will show

. If you were pressed to assign a date to the death
of capitalism in this country, what would you pick.

August 15, 1971. Executive Order 11615.
 
Re: history will show

OMGawd you are spot on I remember that!
The distortion in the fabric of the economy was truly epic!
 
Well, I'm sorry, but I can't believe that when surgery and prosthetics and occupational and physical therapy (and associated equipment) costs are not much higher than in peacetime, given the tens of thousands of combat-wounded (including all those who lost limbs)...and this is not including the present and particularly the future costs of hundreds of thousands of PTSD cases.

and then there's the costs of all the military contractor civilians in the war zone as well - and we can't forget supplies - gasoline costs $100-$600 per gallon in theater, so that adds up too.

In peacetime other VA requirements soak up the money. The military contractors and fuel, etc. are already in the cited figures.:peace
 
And as I pointed out to you before, we lost the supermajority in the Senate precisely 72 in-session days after his first inauguration - from then on, the Republicans in the Senate filibustered bills at a greater rate than at any point in American history - and in order to break the filibuster, we HAD to have at least one Republican vote...which all too often didn't come, or if it did, came with a very heavy price.

So please don't give me the excuse of us having the majorities in both houses, because without that supermajority in the Senate, NOTHING could get done unless the Republicans agreed to it.

Should have changed the Senate rules if POTUS & Harry Reid were politically too incompetent to pick up a vote here & there. A POTUS with majorities in both houses has no grounds to complain.:peace
 
"Conservatives Are Standing on the Wrong Side of History"

Despite all the noise religious and Marxist mystics make on the topic, "History" has no "wrong" or "right" sides, or any particular direction. History is simply what has happened.

We may perceive new things, things gaining strength and popularity as superior, but it would be useful to recall that at some relatively recent point the totalitarian monstrosities of Nazism and Communism were also viewed as the unstoppable "waves of future". Change is good, except when it is bad - or worse than bad.

Where's nothing especially wrong - or right - about the conservative attitude per se; it all depends on what kind of change is being resisted, no?

Personally, not being a conservative at all -neither ideologically nor "psychologically" - I am mostly opposed to the current "progressive" agenda - in the health care area particularly. Not because I think that the status quo is great (it is a disaster), but because what they seem to be advocating (be it the hideous Obamacare or a mindless copy of the NHS) is even worse, in my honest opinion.

Should I feel uncomfortable about not joining the enthusiastic Young Lemmings in their march toward the Bridge to the Future? Don't think so. They see a bridge, I see only a slippery cliff. We've got what we've got; I have to trust my own eyes and my modest reasoning abilities.
If you "see only a slippery cliff," then perhaps you can trust your own eyes, but the rest of us don't have to.

That you fall back on the word "Marxist" shows that you fail to accept the truth that liberalism is not socialism, and socialism is not communism. A true Marxist would call President Obama fascist, while a true socialist would call him a conservative and a sellout. While a true liberal would call him a disappointment, and suggest that he is playing too much defense and not enough offense.

And a true conservative would remember that what is now called "Obamacare" was called "the Republican alternative to Hillarycare" 20 years ago. Like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama's ideology resembles that of Dwight D. Eisenhower a lot more than it does that of Lyndon Johnson, let alone Ted Kennedy or George McGovern.
 
Re: history will show

Imagine whirrled peas?
The situation we currently find ourselves in is a direct result of government meddling in the Mixed Economy
of course the solution is even greater government control. If you were pressed to assign a date to the death
of capitalism in this country, what would you pick.

There were many stab wounds, gunshots and blunt force traumas but what constituted the fatal blow?


2nbrbeg.jpg
Capitalism is not dead. Anyone can see that. What should have died long ago is vulture capitalism.

"I stand for the square deal. But when I say that I am for the square deal, I mean not merely that I stand for fair play under the present rules of the game, but that I stand for having those rules changed so as to work for a more substantial equality of opportunity and of reward for equally good service...

"The Constitution guarantees protection to property, and we must make that promise good. But it does not give the right of suffrage to any corporation…. There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done… Corporate expenditures for political purposes, and especially such expenditures by public-service corporations, have supplied one of the principal sources of corruption in our political affairs."

What socialist said that?

Theodore Roosevelt. Over 100 years ago.
 
In peacetime other VA requirements soak up the money. The military contractors and fuel, etc. are already in the cited figures.:peace

Jack...the VA requirements grow only in proportion to personnel levels, and grows significantly in wartime. I don't know where you're getting the idea that VA requirements 'soak up' money in peacetime any more than it already does - is required to do - in wartime.
 
Should have changed the Senate rules if POTUS & Harry Reid were politically too incompetent to pick up a vote here & there. A POTUS with majorities in both houses has no grounds to complain.:peace

Jack...look - when the Senate tried to pass a bill to take tax breaks away from companies shipping jobs overseas, the Republicans filibustered it and voted against it in lockstep. When the Senate tried to pass a bill giving health benefits to 9/11 first responders and workers, the Republicans filibustered it and voted against it in lockstep.

Do you really think that the Republican leadership was kidding when they had that meeting the night of Obama's inauguration and decided that they would oppose whatever he proposed, no matter what it was? Obamacare was a Republican idea, supported and implemented in Massachusetts by a Republican who became the standard-bearer for Republicans in the 2012 election...but what does he say about the strictly-Republican idea now called 'Obamacare'? Same thing for that Republican idea called cap-and-trade - if any Republican even mentions supporting it today, he's going to get primaried from the Right.

Jack, no offense, guy, but you need to step back and look just how far to the Right the Republican party has gone, how the leadership has enforced voting in lockstep to a degree never before seen in American history. You can claim otherwise all you want, but the recorded facts and the enforced bloc-voting say otherwise.
 
That you fall back on the word "Marxist" shows that you fail to accept the truth that liberalism is not socialism, and socialism is not communism.

That you see the word "Marxist" and immediately go off on a tangent and make a whole bunch of assumptions out of thin air, suggests that you may not feel especially secure, when it comes to all these relationships between "Marxism", "socialism", and what you call "liberalism".

I was talking about the Marxist mystical historicism, the eschatological vision of history as a mechanistic process guaranteed to result in such-and-such utopian "omega conditions".
 
I suppose I can see it from the Libby's point of view, how can the government enacting ruinous rates of taxation
under the guise of free healthcare ever result in gulags and mass graves? One thing's for sure it show nuff isn't
going to result in an ever increasing arc of freedom and economic prosperity. Sure there will be some that refuse
to live under such tyranny but they can be imprisoned for tax evasion at least we'll be taken care of by big brother?
 
I suppose I can see it from the Libby's point of view, how can the government enacting ruinous rates of taxation
under the guise of free healthcare ever result in gulags and mass graves? One thing's for sure it show nuff isn't
going to result in an ever increasing arc of freedom and economic prosperity. Sure there will be some that refuse
to live under such tyranny but they can be imprisoned for tax evasion at least we'll be taken care of by big brother?

"One thing's for sure it show nuff isn't
going to result in an ever increasing arc of freedom and economic prosperity."

Nothing is going to last forever - the key is to get it to result in the longest possible period of freedom and economic prosperity.

Right?

Right.

NOW, AOG - in the modern world, what systems have worked to the greatest degree of freedom and economic prosperity, for the longest periods?
 
I suppose I can see it from the Libby's point of view, how can the government enacting ruinous rates of taxation under the guise of free healthcare ever result in gulags and mass graves? One thing's for sure it show nuff isn't going to result in an ever increasing arc of freedom and economic prosperity. Sure there will be some that refuse to live under such tyranny but they can be imprisoned for tax evasion at least we'll be taken care of by big brother?
The only "ruinous rates of taxation" America has ever had were low ones.

When we had considerably higher rates, in the 1940s, '50s and '60s, we built the great American middle class. Before the Bush Tax Cuts, we had the Clinton tax rates, and our economy was never better. When tax rates get slashed, the result is massive unemployment: 1932, 1982, 2008.
 
The truly great thing is that you actually believe that!
taxes create jobs, in that case you should be happy
because the real rates will be skyrocketing next year!
 
Actually we were at war, a cold war with the Soviet Union and much of Reagans spending was fighting and winning that war. Give the man some credit Moot.

Reagan wasting billions on "Star Wars" had little to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The fall came from within.

Causes of Soviet Collapse

Stagnating Economy: The Soviet Union had grown to a size large enough to the point where it became cumbersome to continue state planning. The massive and intricate Soviet economy became too large to manage by state planners, who were unwilling to enable more autonomy at mid-managerial level to remain responsive down to a localized level. This resulted in failed economic policies (failure to respond timely to continuous changes), while thwarting innovation. Managers commonly fudged numbers to show that quotas and goals were being met.

Afghanistan Quagmire: The Soviet-friendly Afghan government was threatened by anti-communist insurgents, which grew to outnumber the Afghanistan army. The USSR supplied tens of thousands of troops and war machines. However, support transformed into an invasion followed by occupation of various cities and towns, bogging the Soviets down into a guerilla war with an increasingly growing and zealous Afghan resistance movement. By the time of the Soviet withdrawal from 1987-89, nothing concrete had been gained, and the USSR left damaged and humiliated.

Perestroika: Refers to economic reforms enacted by Gorbachev in 1987, in an attempt to reverse the Soviet Union's sliding economy. Some free market elements were added, but not enough to bring about reform. The free-market policies were enough to result in failed businesses, but shortages became common as price controls were kept in place. With price ceilings limiting profits, the incentive to produce sufficient quantities was removed.

Decentralization: When the Soviet Union did allow individual republics more autonomy, tax revenues were withheld.

Save as much as 70% on select National Geographic merchandise!

Glasnost: With the Soviet public becoming more disenchanted with their secretive government, Gorbachev attempted to compensate by committing to openness and transparency with the media. However, this backfired as the public learned of long-standing political cover ups revealing past and recent atrocities, missteps by leadership, social and health failures of the USSR and the true extent of national economic problems. This further eroded support for the regime.

Cherynobyl Disaster: The nuclear power plant accident in the Ukraine town of Cherynobyl. It was initially covered up by the Soviet government, compounding the health crisis, while further sowing the seeds of distrust within the constituency, as the extent of the disaster and the cover-up came to light.

Local Nationalism: With declining public perception of the Soviet government (due to political blunders), nationalism grew within each of the individual republics, creating independence ambitions in republics such as Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

Lack of Economic Incentives: The state-planned economic system did not provide sufficient incentives to encourage innovation and ambitious productivity.

Excessive Military Focus: The USSR was overly-focused on military build-up, neglecting domestic troubles that would play a major role in bringing down the USSR. This was largely due to the perceived need to keep pace with the massive U.S. military build up.

Reduced Motivation of Fear: Friendlier relations with the U.S. in the 70s, 80s meant that the general public was no longer completely motivated to strengthen itself against the American threat.

Ethnic Fragmentation: The USSR used “Slav Nation/Pride” propaganda as justification in creating a unified Slav state. However, Russia was clearly the favored and dominant state, while others (including Turkish/Central Asian constituents) were oppressed. Russians clearly viewed themselves as superior, despite asking client states to buy into Slav unity/patriotism/pride, which became a transparent effort to draw other Slav nations in under a false romantic ideal. As a result, non-Russians were quick to separate from the Soviet Union when it entered troubled waters.

Causes of the Collapse of the Soviet Union
 
Back
Top Bottom