Republicans are not the problem, conservatism is the problem

[OscarB63]

Changing just to change is a liberal hallmark, I entirely disagree with that. However, you never really know how a new system will work in the real world until it's actually out in the real world and by then, it's usually too late to just go back. We have to make the best choices that we can, with the realization that any choices we make might not be perfect and might have to be modified down the road. That should not, however, and this is a problem with a lot of conservatives, leave us quivering in our boots, afraid to ever change anything.

If it ain't broke....don't fix it

 

[Hard Truth]

Changing just to change is a liberal hallmark, I entirely disagree with that. However, you never really know how a new system will work in the real world until it's actually out in the real world and by then, it's usually too late to just go back. We have to make the best choices that we can, with the realization that any choices we make might not be perfect and might have to be modified down the road. That should not, however, and this is a problem with a lot of conservatives, leave us quivering in our boots, afraid to ever change anything.

I don't agree that liberals just change things for no reason, the difference between libs and cons is that libs don't accept existing policies that have negative impact on a significant minority of people, and conservatives generally do.

Gay rights is a classic example. Conservatives had no problem with existing laws that oppressed gays and opposed changes to those laws, liberals supported the changes.

If liberals have a flaw it is that their ideas don't always work as intended. Conservatives are so reflexively opposed to change that their warnings are disregarded. A middle ground that should help achieve consensus and improve the quality of government programs is to establish clear goals and benchmark measures for new initiatives or changes and have a date when the program must be reviewed. The program/change should only be continued if it proves to be effective as shown by the previously established benchmarks.

 

[Grant]

That is not evidence of a Democratic strategy to keep Blacks dependent on government benefits.

This was Lyndon Johnson speaking on The Great Society and all the welfare programs he initiated.

"I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

Lyndon B. Johnson

Doesn't that sound like a long term plan to you? And did it not succeed? And do any Democrats want to tamper with those programs? Never!

In fact they will always threaten that the Republican party will remove these giveaways because Republicans are 'racists'. Is fact democrats support Affirmative Action, the most racist act in the modern age. We only have to look at the history of the Democrats, and the way they treat anyone who dares turn their back on them, to see that the Democrats are still steeped in racism.

 

[What if...?]

Don't waste your tears and emotion on us. Trust me we don't want them. We are more than happy with the way we see the world. For a large number of us, we would rather FAIL by doing things the Right way than to SUCCEED by doing things the Wrong way. They're called PRINCIPLES. We understand that you progressives don't believe in them, but we still do.

You know, I get where you're coming from, but sometimes "conservatives" take the "right" and "wrong" too far.

At one point applying leeches was the "right" way to treat illnesses, for instance.

 

[Spriggs05]

when I think of conservatism in the political arena, I think of traditional conservatism and not what is called conservatism today. Here are the three tenets of traditional conservatism:

1. Keeping free of foreign alliances as much as possible and unnecessary war. Some would call this isolationism. I tend to call it common since.

2. Fiscal responsibility: A balance budget, spending only what one takes in.

3. A government that stays out of a citizen's private business and lives. In other words no unnecessary regulations and mandates on business and let the individuals lead the life they see fit as long as they are not harming anyone else.

the conservatism of today, actually fails all three tenets of traditional conservatism, so in my opinion they really aren't conservatives. They are something else and I haven't the faintest idea of what.

You mean: Old Right (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
rather than what it is now: New Right - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Tigger]

You know, I get where you're coming from, but sometimes "conservatives" take the "right" and "wrong" too far.

At one point applying leeches was the "right" way to treat illnesses, for instance.

The use of leeches as a means to treat illnesses is not a matter of Principles or Values, What if.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Changing just to change is a liberal hallmark, I entirely disagree with that.

Yes it's like diversity for diversity's sake. I'm all for diversity in working towards a common goal, you will end up with better solutions. Wanting diversity but going in every direction is stupid.

 

[What if...?]

The use of leeches as a means to treat illnesses is not a matter of Principles or Values, What if.

Slavery was once the pricipled mans solution to the problem of the savagery of the black man, then.

And lets not forget how often "principles" and "values" have been used to abuse, exploit, and subjugate people.

I know you're set in yoir ways, and you're always reasonable and courteous, i just think you get a little hidebound.

 

[Perotista]

You mean: Old Right (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
rather than what it is now: New Right - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't know what you would call it or what Wikipedia calls it. It is known to me as traditional conservatism. Today's so called conservatives tend to call it Libertarianism when I bring it up. Perhaps I live in the past, but I swear what is called conservatism today, isn't conservatism at all..

 

[sangha]

You missed my point if that's your conclusion. Both are wrong and spending must be reduced in entitlements and warfare.

Can you explain why you think so without using fear mongering or promising benefits to people, since you so abhor such tactics?

 

[sangha]

That was post which, btw sangha, you quoted. Oops.

I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[NoC_T]

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.

Simplistic.

 

[Hard Truth]

This was Lyndon Johnson speaking on The Great Society and all the welfare programs he initiated.


Doesn't that sound like a long term plan to you? And did it not succeed? And do any Democrats want to tamper with those programs? Never!

In fact they will always threaten that the Republican party will remove these giveaways because Republicans are 'racists'. Is fact democrats support Affirmative Action, the most racist act in the modern age. We only have to look at the history of the Democrats, and the way they treat anyone who dares turn their back on them, to see that the Democrats are still steeped in racism.

How do you know he wasn't talking about the civil rights act, rather than the plan to trick blacks to support Dems with government benefits?

"Meet Ronald Kessler. An American journalist who authored a book called Inside the White House that was released back in 1996. In the book, he had a few quotations that Lyndon Johnson supposedly made aboard Air Force One that raised quite a few eyebrows. Now, first of all, let’s remember that we have only Kessler’s word to go on. No one has ever corroborated these quotations, so there is always the chance that they were simply made up, embellished, or taken grossly out of context." Lyndon Johnson, The N Word, and the Concept of the Democrat Plantation | Common Sense Conspiracy

In June 2006, Kessler became chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax, a conservative website and magazine. (per Wikipedia)


I won't get into the debate on whether affirmative action is racist, but the claim is that it hurts whites. Supporting affirmative action is not evidence of support for a conspiracy to exploit and oppress blacks for political gain.

 

[Grant]

when I think of conservatism in the political arena, I think of traditional conservatism and not what is called conservatism today. Here are the three tenets of traditional conservatism:

1. Keeping free of foreign alliances as much as possible and unnecessary war. Some would call this isolationism. I tend to call it common since.

2. Fiscal responsibility: A balance budget, spending only what one takes in.

3. A government that stays out of a citizen's private business and lives. In other words no unnecessary regulations and mandates on business and let the individuals lead the life they see fit as long as they are not harming anyone else.

the conservatism of today, actually fails all three tenets of traditional conservatism, so in my opinion they really aren't conservatives. They are something else and I haven't the faintest idea of what.

The public has become so accustomed to 'free stuff' that no politician would dare suggest that it be taken away. They would simply not get elected.

Most people, and I think we can generally refer to them as Leftists, feel that there is an unlimited supply of money somewhere and that it should be shared with them. Politicianssuch as Barrack Obama, who continued to predict doom if sequestration occurred, will always want more giveaways because it means more votes. These are not moral people and of course they have no respect for those who vote for them.

"Conservatives" can no longer compete with those who will offer to give things away for free to a citizenry who has grown accustomed to expect them. They become wards of the state, not a free people.

This has been known for centuries, back to the Greeks, but each state seems to feel they can change history and remain dependent and free. That's not going to happen. As John Adams said "There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt." Many warnings were issued by the founders of America, and other great men, as to what might happen when governments gain too much power but these cautions are apparently being ignored in the schools of today.

 

[Grant]

How do you know he wasn't talking about the civil rights act, rather than the plan to trick blacks to support Dems with government benefits?

LBJ didn't initiate the Civil Rights Act, Dwight Eisenhower did.

"Meet Ronald Kessler. An American journalist who authored a book called Inside the White House that was released back in 1996. In the book, he had a few quotations that Lyndon Johnson supposedly made aboard Air Force One that raised quite a few eyebrows. Now, first of all, let’s remember that we have only Kessler’s word to go on. No one has ever corroborated these quotations, so there is always the chance that they were simply made up, embellished, or taken grossly out of context." Lyndon Johnson, The N Word, and the Concept of the Democrat Plantation | Common Sense Conspiracy

In June 2006, Kessler became chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax, a conservative website and magazine. (per Wikipedia)

So you feel that because he became editor a Washington correspondent he is a liar?

I won't get into the debate on whether affirmative action is racist, but the claim is that it hurts whites. Supporting affirmative action is not evidence of support for a conspiracy to exploit and oppress blacks for political gain.

Of course it is racist. It is based on race and was initiated by Democrats. Those who are not Democrats feel, like one famous Republican once said, that people should be "judged on the content of their character, not the color of their skin". It's Leftists who judge others by skin color and who want to keep Black people down. It has nothing to do with Whites.

 

[Hard Truth]

1. LBJ didn't initiate the Civil Rights Act, Dwight Eisenhower did.

2. So you feel that because he became editor a Washington correspondent he is a liar?

3. Of course it is racist. It is based on race and was initiated by Democrats. Those who are not Democrats feel, like one famous Republican once said, that people should be "judged on the content of their character, not the color of their skin". It's Leftists who judge others by skin color and who want to keep Black people down. It has nothing to do with Whites.

There were several civil rights acts. LBJ was involved in advocating for the 1964 Civil Rights Act (the one that actually effectively ended segregation) Johnson told Kennedy aide Ted Sorensen that "I know the risks are great and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway."

As shown on this thread, conservatives often lie, especially about their positions in the past. Conservative writer Kessler is the one and only source for the LBJ quote that you cited.

3. There is no evidence that leftists or liberals want to keep Blacks down. There are plenty of quotes from conservatives openly advocating for segregation and oppression, although they have not been very open about it since the 1960s. Some conservatives still do use dog whistle phrases like "food stamp president" or "Kenyan anti-imperialist."

 

[Cephus]

If it ain't broke....don't fix it

But if it is broke, don't be afraid to fix it.

 

[Cephus]

Gay rights is a classic example. Conservatives had no problem with existing laws that oppressed gays and opposed changes to those laws, liberals supported the changes.

Except for the fact that you're largely not talking about conservatives, you're talking about neo-conservatives, which are not remotely the same thing. If they're a part of the Republican Party leadership, chances are excellent they are neo-cons, not conservatives.

 

[Grant]

There were several civil rights acts. LBJ was involved in advocating for the 1964 Civil Rights Act (the one that actually effectively ended segregation)

It was begun by Dwight D. Eisenhower and was, in fact, opposed by Lyndon B. Johnson at the time.

If you knew history you would not be a Democrat.

 

[sangha]

It was begun by Dwight D. Eisenhower and was, in fact, opposed by Lyndon B. Johnson at the time.

So you're saying it is the republicans, beginning with Ike, who have been trying to buy the support of black people!!

 

[Grant]

So you're saying it is the republicans, beginning with Ike, who have been trying to buy the support of black people!!

If you need an interpreter to understand what you read, please find someone else. I can't be bothered having to explain things to you several times.

 

[sangha]

If you need an interpreter to understand what you read, please find someone else. I can't be bothered having to explain things to you several times.

IOW, I nailed it!! :lol:

 

[Hard Truth]

It was begun by Dwight D. Eisenhower and was, in fact, opposed by Lyndon B. Johnson at the time.

If you knew history you would not be a Democrat.

I am not a Democrat, although I usually have to vote for them as the lesser evil.

I know my history pretty well, including the history of the civil rights movement and the southern strategy.

"In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to the Republican Party strategy of gaining political support or winning elections in the Southern section of the country by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3][4][5]

Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery before the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixiecrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation.

The strategy was first adopted under future Republican President Richard Nixon and Republican Senator Barry Goldwater[6][7] in the late 1960s.[8] The strategy was successful in many regards. It contributed to the electoral realignment of Southern states to the Republican Party, but at the expense of losing more than 90 percent of black voters to the Democratic Party..."
Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Cephus]

Yes it's like diversity for diversity's sake. I'm all for diversity in working towards a common goal, you will end up with better solutions. Wanting diversity but going in every direction is stupid.

The problem is, they don't want simple diversity, they want forced quotas. They don't want equality of opportunity, they want equality of outcome. That's not diversity.

 

[Perotista]

The public has become so accustomed to 'free stuff' that no politician would dare suggest that it be taken away. They would simply not get elected.

Most people, and I think we can generally refer to them as Leftists, feel that there is an unlimited supply of money somewhere and that it should be shared with them. Politicianssuch as Barrack Obama, who continued to predict doom if sequestration occurred, will always want more giveaways because it means more votes. These are not moral people and of course they have no respect for those who vote for them.

"Conservatives" can no longer compete with those who will offer to give things away for free to a citizenry who has grown accustomed to expect them. They become wards of the state, not a free people.

This has been known for centuries, back to the Greeks, but each state seems to feel they can change history and remain dependent and free. That's not going to happen. As John Adams said "There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt." Many warnings were issued by the founders of America, and other great men, as to what might happen when governments gain too much power but these cautions are apparently being ignored in the schools of today.

Here is what Eisenhower said in his farewell address to the nation.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.


So no one can say this nation hasn't been warned and warned and warned. Not only by IKE but also by Perot.