Republicans are not the problem, conservatism is the problem

[VanceMack]

Keeping the elites rich and powerful is the essence of conservatism. Reagan undid a lot of the progress towards greater economic equality between the richest and poorest that was achieved during the 1960s and 70s with civil rights legislation, social programs and entitlements. He used money cut from those programs to fund a huge defense buildup that primarily benefited the rich and powerful.

There are plenty of rich and powerful liberals. And guess what...they don't give a **** about you either.

 

[Cyrylek]

Yes, and they will see that you did not merely mention SS, as you now dishonestly claim, but you also criticized it as being "structurally flawed"

Jeez. Do you even listen to yourself? Do you imagine that a "mere mention" could literally consist of me writing just two words in the body of the post: "Social Security", and the resident lefties STILL would fly off the handle? I don't know, maybe that's what would happen - you know them better than I do.

Here, let me try this again. (Last time, I promise).

(1) Social Security is an old, deeply flawed, terrible pension system in urgent need of reform. It is fiscally unsound because it relies on the transgenerational pyramid scheme; it is robbing those who do not live to the pension age; it subsizdies the rich for no good economic or social reason; it levies a job-killing tax on payrolls and an income-squeezing tax on even the poorest employees; it is a weird, harmful engine for using those taxes to buy government debt; its trust holdings are completely undiversified - treasurys only, etc, etc, etc. You've heard all this before.

(2) If you are so inclined, you may argue that every one of these flaws is actually a great virtue in clever disguise, but it wouldn't make the abovementioned unhinged rant - and similar or worse rants we hear every time there's an attempt to discuss Social Security - less of a demented conservative/reactionary attack in response to any suggestion that the holy cow is not all that holy - or may be running out of milk.

You say, even without any details, that this particular pension system is flawed and needs reform - and they go at you like a spider monkey on crack: "So, you want us back in the Middle Ages?! You want the old folks in the poorhouses!? Grrraaahhhh!".

 

[sangha]

Jeez. Do you even listen to yourself? Do you imagine that a "mere mention" could literally consist of me writing just two words in the body of the post: "Social Security", and the resident lefties STILL would fly off the handle? I don't know, maybe that's what would happen - you know them better than I do.

Here, let me try this again. (Last time, I promise).

(1) Social Security is an old, deeply flawed, terrible pension system in urgent need of reform. It is fiscally unsound because it relies on the transgenerational pyramid scheme; it is robbing those who do not live to the pension age; it subsizdies the rich for no good economic or social reason; it levies a job-killing tax on payrolls and an income-squeezing tax on even the poorest employees; it is a weird, harmful engine for using those taxes to buy government debt; its trust holdings are completely undiversified - treasurys only, etc, etc, etc. You've heard all this before.

(2) If you are so inclined, you may argue that every one of these flaws is actually a great virtue in clever disguise, but it wouldn't make the abovementioned unhinged rant - and similar or worse rants we hear every time there's an attempt to discuss Social Security - less of a demented conservative/reactionary attack in response to any suggestion that the holy cow is not all that holy - or may be running out of milk.

You say, even without any details, that this particular pension system is flawed and needs reform - and they go at you like a spider monkey on crack: "So, you want us back in the Middle Ages?! You want the old folks in the poorhouses!? Grrraaahhhh!".

And I suppose your post of several paragraphs is just another "mere mention" :roll:

The only hysteria I see is resulting in the delusion of yours that SS is "unsound", "deeply flawed", " pyramid scheme", "job-killing", and on and on you rant, and all because I merely pointed out that you did more than merely mention SS.

It seems like all one has to do is point out that something a rightwinger said was inaccurate, and the resident righties fly off the handle and start ranting about the evil that is SS.

 

[Cyrylek]

the delusion of yours that SS is "unsound", "deeply flawed", " pyramid scheme", "job-killing".

:lol: Don't realize what just happened? Great. Thanks for a second illustration.

(Social Security [organ music and chorus of angels] - "unsound" or "flawed"? Impossible! Delusion, deslusion, delusion!)

 

[sangha]

:lol: Don't realize what just happened? Great. Thanks for a second illustration.

(Social Security [organ music and chorus of angels] - "unsound" or "flawed"? Impossible! Delusion, deslusion, delusion!)

You're flying off the handle again. That's what often happens when someone points out the delusion has no basis in reality

And often, there are religious allusions in their hysterical rants

 

[Neomalthusian]

This struck me one day and I'd like to share the idea.

Definition of conservative
adjective
1. averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values:
they were very conservative in their outlook

Source: Oxford dictionary

To cling to old ideas and refusing to explore and grow is just such a terrible thing. I truly fell bad for people who sees everything as black and white and aren't open to provocative ideas.

When welfare statism has become the norm, "conservatives" are no longer averse to change, and liberals/progressives are the ones seeking to preserve the status quo (of reliance on central government).

I think this is why individual rights, small-central-government folks have diverged from the "conservative Republican" label and increasingly considered themselves independent and/or libertarian.

Conservatives are now the ones advocating significant systemic change, as society is already rife the progressive doctrine of universal entitlement.

 

[Cyrylek]

You're flying off the handle again. That's what often happens when someone points out the delusion has no basis in reality

And often, there are religious allusions in their hysterical rants

Beautiful. Keep going.

 

[shiang]

Perhaps – A bit of isolationism may be good if we keep out noses out of other countries business when our national security is not directly threaten. I think Iraq was no threat to us and thus avoidable, Afghanistan with UBL using that country as a training ground and safe heaven, especially after 9-11, that country was a threat.

As to the deficit, it is not what I would describe as manageable. Especially when even Ryan can not come up with anything less than a ten year plan which probably is a few years too long before we fall into the abyss. What happens if the interest rates rises to normal levels which is around 6% instead of around the 2% we are paying today? Then we have that crisis on our hands. This amount of debt is not a crisis only because of the very low interest rates.

It is my opinion that a lot of the regulations and mandates placed on our manufacturing base has caused them to flee overseas due to the extra cost associated with it. So our economy now is service base instead of industrial.

I agree with you on Iraq. I mean to say things more like humanitarian aid, ideological interactions, and military intervention to defend others in need and to defend our own interests.

I'd say a year to two's worth of GDP is manageable.

Due to our lack of man power compared to countries like China. Our focus should be on design and service in order to compete. That said manufacturing is still important and we should take what we can get but it's not an area that would favor the US.

 

[Perotista]

I agree with you on Iraq. I mean to say things more like humanitarian aid, ideological interactions, and military intervention to defend others in need and to defend our own interests.

I'd say a year to two's worth of GDP is manageable.

Due to our lack of man power compared to countries like China. Our focus should be on design and service in order to compete. That said manufacturing is still important and we should take what we can get but it's not an area that would favor the US.

I look back on history, WWII was won by our industrialization/manufacturing as much as for all the manpower we provided, perhaps even more on the side of our ability to manufacture war related/needed materials. It worries me when a soldier wears boots made in China.

But unlike you, I am not sure if we haven't all ready passed the point of no return on the debt.

 

[polgara]

I look back on history, WWII was won by our industrialization/manufacturing as much as for all the manpower we provided, perhaps even more on the side of our ability to manufacture war related/needed materials. It worries me when a soldier wears boots made in China.

But unlike you, I am not sure if we haven't all ready passed the point of no return on the debt.

Good morning, Pero.

I have also read that our American flags are also being made in China! We can't even compete on that? Sad...

Regarding our debt, with several countries already paying for oil in other than American dollars, together with our apparent inability to stop adding to the debt we already have, I'm afraid that we may have already passed the point of no return! What will happen next is anybody's guess, but I can state with certainty that WE WILL NOT LIKE IT!

 

[Cephus]

The problem is, the Republican Party isn't conservative, it hasn't been for nearly 30 years. It's hyper-religious socially and liberal fiscally. It has nothing whatsoever to do with conservatism. At least pretend you understand what the terms mean.

 

[Masada]

The problem is, the Republican Party isn't conservative, it hasn't been for nearly 30 years. It's hyper-religious socially and liberal fiscally. It has nothing whatsoever to do with conservatism. At least pretend you understand what the terms mean.

I don't see the Republican Party as being "hyper-religious" socially. I do see them as being liberal fiscally though. What the Republican party is, in relation to religion, is FUNDAMENTALIST. And believe me when I say, that's not a good thing.

How many so called "conservatives" were screaming for Rob Portman to be our candidate? Just up and changes his views on gay marriage. That's fine, but it tells us something about him. It tells us that his convictions didn't run near as deep as people hoped.

Where people misunderstand conservatives, and many times, Christians, is when we stand up and oppose things like gay marriage. I oppose gay marriage, but I don't "hate" gay people. I don't "fear" them. But if you oppose gay marriage, you're labeled a bigot, or a religious zealot. Is it so hard for people to believe that Christians oppose homosexuality? I mean, they've opposed it forever, across all ages of time. This isn't some new phenomena going on within Christianity after all.

Republicans have lost their center. There isn't a single issue that REpublicans will go to the mat over anymore. Not even taxes. Not abortion. Not gay marriage. They are the luke warm party that's being spit from everyone's mouth.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

They are the luke warm party that's being spit from everyone's mouth.

Nah. If that were the case, they'd be supporting gay rights.

 

[Trip]

This struck me one day and I'd like to share the idea.

Definition of conservative
adjective
1. averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values:
they were very conservative in their outlook

Source: Oxford dictionary

To cling to old ideas and refusing to explore and grow is just such a terrible thing. I truly fell bad for people who sees everything as black and white and aren't open to provocative ideas. To build a party around conservatism is to doom it to fail.

You're confusing conservative personal outlook, with conservatism, the political ideology, a very naive mistake.

The fact of the matter is that the most advanced and radical idea on the face of the planet, are the principles of individual liberty and restrained government upon which this country is based.

In fact in 1787 James Madison, in Federalist #10 recognized today's "Progressive" Marxist agenda as being incompatible with this country's founding principle of liberty, and did so decades before Marx put pen to paper.

Madison wrote in Federalist #10:

"Theoretic politicians" <today's Elitist politicians> who promote a species of government intending to "reduce mankind to a perfect equality" by "perfectly equaliz[ing]" them <Marxist Social Justice> and "assimilat[ing] their possessions" <redistribution of wealth>, and "their opinions" <political correctness>, and "their passions" <social engineering>.
​

There, before our eyes, is the 2008 and 2012 Democratic "Progressive" platform in a nutshell, which Madison recognized 226 years ago to be incompatible with our freedoms.

There's nothing at all a "provocative idea" in this "progressive" ideology, which is nothing but Marxism repackaged, which itself is a repackaging of the oldest and most despicable human traits of envy, resentment, and jealousy enabled by tyrannous government authority.

Only those too naive to recognize this fact are sucked into the idea the Democrats are anything at all new and forward-looking.

 

[Masada]

Nah. If that were the case, they'd be supporting gay rights.

Patience my friend, patience. They will. Hide and watch. There are 2 Supreme Court cases coming up this month over gay marriage. If it goes the way of legalizing it in all 50 states, hide and watch. The Republican response will be something along these lines, "It's time to accept that times have changed, and it's important to respect the rights of all citizens. While we maintain a personal belief that marriage consists of one man and one woman, we can no longer deny governmental rights to certain groups of Americans."

Cave......mark my words.

 

[Cephus]

I don't see the Republican Party as being "hyper-religious" socially. I do see them as being liberal fiscally though. What the Republican party is, in relation to religion, is FUNDAMENTALIST. And believe me when I say, that's not a good thing.

We have a secular government and the Republican Party is anything but. I don't care if they're fundamentalist or not, which clearly they are, religion has no place in government at all.

How many so called "conservatives" were screaming for Rob Portman to be our candidate? Just up and changes his views on gay marriage. That's fine, but it tells us something about him. It tells us that his convictions didn't run near as deep as people hoped.

Convictions don't matter in modern politics, people don't take stands, people do what it takes to get votes. It's all carefully monitored and designed to cater to their base.

Where people misunderstand conservatives, and many times, Christians, is when we stand up and oppose things like gay marriage. I oppose gay marriage, but I don't "hate" gay people. I don't "fear" them. But if you oppose gay marriage, you're labeled a bigot, or a religious zealot. Is it so hard for people to believe that Christians oppose homosexuality? I mean, they've opposed it forever, across all ages of time. This isn't some new phenomena going on within Christianity after all.

You can oppose anything you want, it just costs you votes and thus, costs you power. And news flash for you, fewer and fewer Christians are opposing gay marriage all the time and Christianity, like most religion, is suffering dramatic declines across the board. One thing Christians need to realize is that we have a SECULAR government in this country and religious beliefs have absolutely no place therein.

Republicans have lost their center. There isn't a single issue that REpublicans will go to the mat over anymore. Not even taxes. Not abortion. Not gay marriage. They are the luke warm party that's being spit from everyone's mouth.

The Republican Party really needs to split. Leave the religious wingnut liberals on one side and the actual conservatives on the other. It's no wonder that the modern Republican Party looks so much like the Democrats, most of the movers and shakers in the party are expatriate Southern Democrats.

 

[Trip]

We have a secular government and the Republican Party is anything but. I don't care if they're fundamentalist or not, which clearly they are, religion has no place in government at all.

That's not what the Constitution indicates.

What it indicates is that the government shall not institutionalize religion, which it defines as "congress shall make no law". Religion actually does have a place in government, and Jefferson attended regular services in the Capital building.

The Republican Party really needs to split. Leave the religious wingnut liberals on one side and the actual conservatives on the other. It's no wonder that the modern Republican Party looks so much like the Democrats, most of the movers and shakers in the party are expatriate Southern Democrats.

"Actual conservatives" do not separate social conservatism, and religion, from other conservatism. The idea that these are, might be, or should be separated, is only a modern fabrication.

 

[Trip]

Patience my friend, patience. They will. Hide and watch. There are 2 Supreme Court cases coming up this month over gay marriage. If it goes the way of legalizing it in all 50 states, hide and watch. The Republican response will be something along these lines, "It's time to accept that times have changed, and it's important to respect the rights of all citizens. While we maintain a personal belief that marriage consists of one man and one woman, we can no longer deny governmental rights to certain groups of Americans."

Cave......mark my words.

Where exactly are "gay rights" or gay marriage in any way supported by the Constitution?

I'm curious how one might support such a conclusion, particularly given a stated disposition to be "conservative".

 

[Masada]

Where exactly are "gay rights" or gay marriage in any way supported by the Constitution?

I'm curious how one might support such a conclusion, particularly given a stated disposition to be "conservative".

I hope you arent drawing the conclusion that I support gay marriage, because I certainly do not. I simply made the claim that it's just a matter of time before the Republican party caves on this issue too. As for the constitution, nowhere is gay marriage supported by the Constitution, and I never claimed it was. But the Supreme Court is hearing two cases on gay marriage this month that are crucial. I suspect it will go one way, and then after that, the Republicans will simply cave on the issue out of fear of losing voters.

 

[Masada]

We have a secular government and the Republican Party is anything but. I don't care if they're fundamentalist or not, which clearly they are, religion has no place in government at all.



Convictions don't matter in modern politics, people don't take stands, people do what it takes to get votes. It's all carefully monitored and designed to cater to their base.



You can oppose anything you want, it just costs you votes and thus, costs you power. And news flash for you, fewer and fewer Christians are opposing gay marriage all the time and Christianity, like most religion, is suffering dramatic declines across the board. One thing Christians need to realize is that we have a SECULAR government in this country and religious beliefs have absolutely no place therein.



The Republican Party really needs to split. Leave the religious wingnut liberals on one side and the actual conservatives on the other. It's no wonder that the modern Republican Party looks so much like the Democrats, most of the movers and shakers in the party are expatriate Southern Democrats.

Where you and I differ I guess is in this: my faith shapes my politics, therefore I cannot seperate the two. Unlike most politicians, and especially liberals, how they seperate the two is unknown to me.

For instance, Nancy Pelosi is Catholic, as is Joe Biden. I don't know how they live with the contradiction of supporting things like gay marriage and abortion politically, but being Catholic, which obviously opposes both. I know the answer, do you? They are much better politicians than they are Catholics obviously.

Faith certainly has a place in government, which is why faithful acts, such as prayer, are very much a part of government, and they always have been. Only progressives seek to over-interpret the seperation clause. Saying that faith and religion have no place in a secular government, is like saying Jesus Christ has no place among sinners. Isolation is not the philosophy of Christianity. That was understood when this country was founded.

But you are right about the government being secular. They are. And society is increasingly secular as well. That doesn't mean we shun our personal faith, or exchange it for secular compromise. There happens to be something called "standing on your principles", whether you're a politician or not.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Patience my friend, patience. They will.

It was a joke based on your comment that everyone's spitting them out. A little tasteless humor to start your day.

I support gay marriage. I believe homosexuals have the same moral obligation to society and their ancestors as the rest of us have, and thus that the government should encourage them to uphold those obligations in the most natural and honest fashion possible-- which is allowing them to marry a partner of their preferred gender and raise children together as a married couple.

 

[Masada]

Wanted to add this too: People understand this philosophy I'm speaking about, and I'll use an example. Have you ever heard of the show Duck Dynasty? Are you familiar with the Robertson family? They are good Christian people, and have a hit show on A&E. Read an article this morning about how the producers have added "bleeps" into the show, for the appearance that someone had cussed. But they didn't. The producers also edit out "in Jesus name we pray" at the end of every episode that ends with the family around the table, blessing their meal. Phil, the father and founder of their multi million dollar business is an ordained minister. He told the producers to cut it out. Now, here's what's interesting. This family is WILDLY popular.

Here's my take on them. American is STARVING for this type of entertainment. Good, wholesome, family oriented, Christian principled people. So many Americans are just starving to death for other Christians to stand up proudly in their faith. Not from a position of judgement though, but from a position of love and respect, just like the Robertson family.

There's something about it really.....it's very, very interesting to watch.

 

[Masada]

It was a joke based on your comment that everyone's spitting them out. A little tasteless humor to start your day.

I support gay marriage. I believe homosexuals have the same moral obligation to society and their ancestors as the rest of us have, and thus that the government should encourage them to uphold those obligations in the most natural and honest fashion possible-- which is allowing them to marry a partner of their preferred gender and raise children together as a married couple.

I believe they should be allowed to "join together", live together, raise children, and receive every single SECULAR benefit married people get, including insurance, tax breaks, access to medical records....etc.

I just don't believe that two homosexuals joining together is even remotely close to being defined as "marriage", because it's simply not.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Where exactly are "gay rights" or gay marriage in any way supported by the Constitution?

The equal protection clause of the Constitution. If men are allowed to marry women, and women are allowed to marry men, men must be allowed to marry men and women must be allowed to marry women. Not to mention, this is a matter of social conservatism rather than "Constitutional" conservatism: people should be married; people should raise children. Homosexuals cannot do this unless they are allowed to marry homosexuals.

Where you and I differ I guess is in this: my faith shapes my politics, therefore I cannot seperate the two. Unlike most politicians, and especially liberals, how they seperate the two is unknown to me.

Indeed. My faith shapes my entire worldview; I could no more separate it from my politics than I could separate it from my family life.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I believe they should be allowed to "join together", live together, raise children, and receive every single SECULAR benefit married people get, including insurance, tax breaks, access to medical records....etc.

I just don't believe that two homosexuals joining together is even remotely close to being defined as "marriage", because it's simply not.

Meh. My ancestors would have allowed them to swear blood brotherhood. I have no objection to calling it marriage; what I object to is people raising children outside of marriage. Accept no substitutes.