Traditional Conservatism: Back away from the edge...

[AngryOldGuy]

What is "our real mission"? Because I can tell you, it doesn't resemble anything that I was raised with.

It has never changed and it is proceeding apace

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

And this is exactly the type of F-you buddy, I'll do whatever I like BS response that is everything wrong with modern conservatives and makes them a joke of walking contradictions.

Usually I get a polite reply when trying to keep a thread on track. Most don't try to explain, they just get back on topic.

But if you and the others who have sidetracked onto wars and war policy can't exhibit a little self control... then sure, I have no problem asking for help in keeping the thread on track.

No response yet I see, just cannot seem to locate that slavery- traditional conservatism nexus perhaps? Your whole OP was a joke, never intended to be taken seriously.

First, the title: Traditional Conservatism: Back away from the edge...

What is that supposed to impart? Just meant as a slap in the face of conservatives.

Then what, you go right into modern conservatism, make an offensive never related, never defined comment about it being a walking contradiction of itself… [ another slap in the face. Two in the first two sentences and you want this to be taken seriously, a matter to be discussed civilly? ] as if that is supposed to mean something? If so, explain yoursef [ and if you have written a treatise on it elsewhere, it’s not cited here, so what are YOU EVEN talking about? ]

Do you then ever go into an actual description of traditional conservatism?

No, rather you amble off into some autobiographically nonsensical story about your father being conservative and his father, blah blah as, I don’t even know, as if that is to have some meaning, some significance in the annals of traditional conservatism, somehow alluding to some fuzzy descriptors of what your idea of traditional conservatism must be somehow? Traditional to you maybe, hardly traditional in the historical context. Add the fact that what might be traditional conservatism as practiced in Europe is different from what is the traditional conservatism as practiced here in the USA… so which are you even talking about?

"Take care of your people and your obligations first....". A nice and noble sentiment of an individual who employs others, no doubt. Where is that expressed anywhere in traditional conservatism, please? Wages are intended as remuneration. One might have the expectation of providing good and honest work to individuals, with pay commiserate with value brought, but there is no expectation of payment beyond worth that I am aware of in US conservative tradition. I could be wrong, but prove it to me… that is one of the aspects of what debate is supposed to be about. Teach us something, if you have something to teach...

If there is anything left over, only then pay yourself? So your family may have to starve in the meantime so you can serve those that work for you first? That is why one is to create a business, that is why one risks their capital, maybe entire life savings and money borrowed, that is why one puts in all the extra hours planning, why one arranges for obtaining the raw materials, purchase the tools and equipment and hire and train the necessary labor? I rather doubt that. One of the tenets of capitalism, which traditional conservatism does adhere to, is the concept of self-interest. Not greed, self-interest, there is a profound difference.

Then you go into a discussion, ostensibly, of increasing the minimum wage. If someone works 40 hours a week you should pay them enough to live independently. How is that traditional conservatism? Is that stated anywhere in the traditional writings? Is it even logical or prudent? No.

The post is so muddled, nothing being nailed down, nothing defined except with some allusion, a waving of your hand in the direction of whatever it is you are going on about, nothing of any particular use with which to discuss.

Then ending your first post with more slaps in the face. Silliness beyond absurdity culminating in this classic paragraph:

I won't post beyond this as I don't believe this issue is up for debate. In all honesty, all attempts to refute this will be viewed in my humble opinion, as pathetic attempts to reconcile the christian right hypocrisy with justifications... a waste of space and time.

Which, of course, was soon proven false as you have posted several times…besides which, why would you put a discussion up that you don’t think has any justification of being discussed? It was a joke thread and can/should be treated no more seriously than that.

So, the reality is that we were only supposed to be here just to discuss your disgust? Or some inanity you considered traditional, which does not very well comport with any of the concepts of traditional conservatism that I am aware of... so would you care to elucidate where you got these apparently erroneous concepts?

And as for your:

And this is exactly the type of F-you buddy, I'll do whatever I like BS response that is everything wrong with modern conservatives and makes them a joke of walking contradictions.

one should possibly consider flushing instead of hitting the submit reply button at times, eh?

 

[Occam's Razor]

No we are Conservatives
period
it is only those on the outside that attempt to fragment the largest political party in the nation (and they've done a right bang up job of it too)
The folks that want the State to assume ultimate authority over the individual will always be commies in my book
the ones that really amuse me are those that wanna call themselves Libertarians (whatever that's supposed to be)
or 'moderates' (a lil poison isn't really gonna hurt ya in fact its medicine!)
oh and the best of all are the 'Independents' oh yes gotta love them folks for sure!

what's another name for a Republican In Name Only yup you guessed it...

Well... I don't buy into the whole "demonize my fellow countrymen" schtick. Disagree, sure. Point out hypocrisies, yup.

I haven't seen a conservative in deeds in over 20 years, few in 40. Lots of talk... empty talk.

It's like idiots that call themselves patriots because they wave a flag, yet know nothing but soundbytes of our founding. The only qualification for being conservative today is to wave the banner and trash all other ideologies.

But please... you've got me on pins and needles... what is "our real mission"?

 

[AngryOldGuy]

Gaugingcatenate That is a truly epic level of major pwnage right there

kudos to you sir

 

[Occam's Razor]

No response yet I see, just cannot seem to locate that slavery- traditional conservatism nexus perhaps? Your whole OP was a joke, never intended to be taken seriously.

First, the title: Traditional Conservatism: Back away from the edge...

What is that supposed to impart? Just meant as a slap in the face of conservatives.

Then what, you go right into modern conservatism, make an offensive never related, never defined comment about it being a walking contradiction of itself… [ another slap in the face. Two in the first two sentences and you want this to be taken seriously, a matter to be discussed civilly? ] as if that is supposed to mean something? If so, explain yoursef [ and if you have written a treatise on it elsewhere, it’s not cited here, so what are YOU EVEN talking about? ]

Do you then ever go into an actual description of traditional conservatism?

No, rather you amble off into some autobiographically nonsensical story about your father being conservative and his father, blah blah as, I don’t even know, as if that is to have some meaning, some significance in the annals of traditional conservatism, somehow alluding to some fuzzy descriptors of what your idea of traditional conservatism must be somehow? Traditional to you maybe, hardly traditional in the historical context. Add the fact that what might be traditional conservatism as practiced in Europe is different from what is the traditional conservatism as practiced here in the USA… so which are you even talking about?

"Take care of your people and your obligations first....". A nice and noble sentiment of an individual who employs others, no doubt. Where is that expressed anywhere in traditional conservatism, please? Wages are intended as remuneration. One might have the expectation of providing good and honest work to individuals, with pay commiserate with value brought, but there is no expectation of payment beyond worth that I am aware of in US conservative tradition. I could be wrong, but prove it to me… that is one of the aspects of what debate is supposed to be about. Teach us something, if you have something to teach...

If there is anything left over, only then pay yourself? So your family may have to starve in the meantime so you can serve those that work for you first? That is why one is to create a business, that is why one risks their capital, maybe entire life savings and money borrowed, that is why one puts in all the extra hours planning, why one arranges for obtaining the raw materials, purchase the tools and equipment and hire and train the necessary labor? I rather doubt that. One of the tenets of capitalism, which traditional conservatism does adhere to, is the concept of self-interest. Not greed, self-interest, there is a profound difference.

Then you go into a discussion, ostensibly, of increasing the minimum wage. If someone works 40 hours a week you should pay them enough to live independently. How is that traditional conservatism? Is that stated anywhere in the traditional writings? Is it even logical or prudent? No.

The post is so muddled, nothing being nailed down, nothing defined except with some allusion, a waving of your hand in the direction of whatever it is you are going on about, nothing of any particular use with which to discuss.

Then ending your first post with more slaps in the face. Silliness beyond absurdity culminating in this classic paragraph:



Which, of course, was soon proven false as you have posted several times…besides which, why would you put a discussion up that you don’t think has any justification of being discussed? It was a joke thread and can/should be treated no more seriously than that.

So, the reality is that we were only supposed to be here just to discuss your disgust? Or some inanity you considered traditional, which does not very well comport with any of the concepts of traditional conservatism that I am aware of... so would you care to elucidate where you got these apparently erroneous concepts?

And as for your: one should possibly consider flushing instead of hitting the submit reply button at times, eh?

Yup... sorry you wasted your time writing all that... I have no intention of reading it. Got to the first line though... I responded to your idiot assumption that wage slavery doesn't exist because it's a contradiction in terms. Soundly refuted it. If you choose to embrace your ignorance, no amount of reason can reach you... thus... you're a waste of time. Please, by all means, spin that any way that makes you feel less pathetic and enjoy having the last word.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

Well since you Lean: Other
I guess even you are hesitate to state the goal of your 'mission'
Come to think of it you may not even be fully aware of what these policies have wrought.
Maybe you should be awarded a pass then eh?

Oh and do ya know what the purpose of a business is?
"to make a profit for the owner(s)"

scary concept for ya huh?

 

[AngryOldGuy]

Gaugingcatenate game, set, match !

 

[Occam's Razor]

Well since you Lean: Other
I guess even you are hesitate to state the goal of your 'mission'
Come to think of it you may not even be fully aware of what these policies have wrought.
Maybe you should be awarded a pass then eh?

Oh and do ya know what the purpose of a business is?
"to make a profit for the owner(s)"

scary concept for ya huh?

Really, that's the extent of the moral Christian right ethos? Profit? ROFLMAO....

Thanks for proving my point. Modern conservatives are a walking contradiction.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Gaugingcatenate game, set, match !

Thanks Angry... I just get so tired of these folks that like to think they are slinging all this pungent yet important cow manure... not realizing that they have actually stepped in it instead...

And talk about stepping, they will not even step up to the plate again after you strike them out a couple of times. Guess that says volumes about the lack of conviction they have in their own viewpoints, huh? Keep swinging Angry, we still have a lot of fight in us yet and, if I am going down I am going down fighting. What we were given here is important and we need to pass it down to our posterity.

And our opposition? Well, they just are not that bright most times. And rarely ever really up for the hard work necessary.

Have a great day...mine has started off well enough, ha ha ha.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Yup... sorry you wasted your time writing all that... I have no intention of reading it. Got to the first line though... I responded to your idiot assumption that wage slavery doesn't exist because it's a contradiction in terms. Soundly refuted it. If you choose to embrace your ignorance, no amount of reason can reach you... thus... you're a waste of time. Please, by all means, spin that any way that makes you feel less pathetic and enjoy having the last word.

Oh, wasn't a waste of my time at all, putting arrogance in its place is a nice pastime that I rather enjoy. I am sure others might enjoy as well. You see, you have no real arguments, your finding fault with conservatism was so easily refuted, you proved only that you have not the first clue as to what you were even talking about...and your expressions of me, well, those seem only your way of projecting yourself. That would be my best guess, am not your therapist, tho.,. so perhaps best to check first.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Yup... sorry you wasted your time writing all that... I have no intention of reading it. Got to the first line though... I responded to your idiot assumption that wage slavery doesn't exist because it's a contradiction in terms. Soundly refuted it. If you choose to embrace your ignorance, no amount of reason can reach you... thus... you're a waste of time. Please, by all means, spin that any way that makes you feel less pathetic and enjoy having the last word.

Oh, and to address what seemed an obscure reference to what you refer to as my "idiot assumption that wage slavery doesn't exist because it's a contradiction in terms", this just adds the the stack of existing evidence of your continued confusion... That was not me. That was Henrin in post 34 and your response in post 36. And to refute your refutation, you are wrong and he is right. First, I do not believe he ever stated that maybe employers do not pay the wage you think necessary, he said wage slavery, meaning the term "wage slavery", is a contradiction in terms. Which it most certainly is.

Being a slave means someone else owns you, that you cannot just run away, that you work for them and that you are not paid. Wages, or payment for work, would contradict that scenario completely...besides which, if you do not like your wages , can find higher elsewhere, or just if you want to, you are free to go. Freedom and slavery, just like wages and slavery, are not a compatible mix... so yeah, complete contradiction in terms.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Oh, wasn't a waste of my time at all, putting arrogance in its place is a nice pastime that I rather enjoy. I am sure others might enjoy as well. You see, you have no real arguments, your finding fault with conservatism was so easily refuted, you proved only that you have not the first clue as to what you were even talking about...and your expressions of me, well, those seem only your way of projecting yourself. That would be my best guess, am not your therapist, tho.,. so perhaps best to check first.

You only highlighted your ability to sing to the choir and your very poorly informed opinions....

Oh, and to address what seemed an obscure reference to what you refer to as my "idiot assumption that wage slavery doesn't exist because it's a contradiction in terms", this just adds the the stack of existing evidence of your continued confusion... That was not me. That was Henrin in post 34 and your response in post 36. And to refute your refutation, you are wrong and he is right. First, I do not believe he ever stated that maybe employers do not pay the wage you think necessary, he said wage slavery, meaning the term "wage slavery", is a contradiction in terms. Which it most certainly is.

Perhaps you should invest in a dictionary, if not a subscription to a reputable encyclopedia. This is a recognized term with clear definitions. You speak of arrogance in the same breath that you claim superior knowledge and understanding to thousands of scholars. Amazing. So in fact, in reality, I am right and you are wrong.

Oh, and I'd apologize for confusing you and Herin, and admit my mistake, yet you seem to share the same brain.

Being a slave means someone else owns you, that you cannot just run away, that you work for them and that you are not paid. Wages, or payment for work, would contradict that scenario completely...besides which, if you do not like your wages , can find higher elsewhere, or just if you want to, you are free to go. Freedom and slavery, just like wages and slavery, are not a compatible mix... so yeah, complete contradiction in terms.

You demonstrating your narrow and ignorant understanding of what slavery is does not win you the argument. The FACT is that there are many forms of slavery. While traditional, european, colonialist slavery entails ownership, not all forms do.

Bride-buying
Child labour
Debt bondage
Human trafficking
Impressment
Peonage
Penal labour
Sexual slavery
Wage slavery

I suggest you google each and every one of them and stop inflicting your arrogant ignorance on the rest of us.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

You only highlighted your ability to sing to the choir and your very poorly informed opinions....

Wait, wait now, how would you even know, you said, in what can only be described as a rather pouting-petulant manner, that you “…have no intention of reading what…” I had written. Calmed down a bit, didya, tantrum over now?

Just prove anything that I said wrong, if you feel so strongly that I only “sing to the choir”, that my opinions are so poorly informed. Besides, if it’s the traditional Conservative choir to which I am singing, what’s your beef, anyhow?

Perhaps you should invest in a dictionary, if not a subscription to a reputable encyclopedia. This is a recognized term with clear definitions. You speak of arrogance in the same breath that you claim superior knowledge and understanding to thousands of scholars. Amazing. So in fact, in reality, I am right and you are wrong.

I have dictionaries spread all around my house, wherever there is a place to sit so I can just reach out and grab it, which I so often do. Plus, a huge old blue Websters Universal that has its own wooden stand, my kindle has that capacity built in, my laptop also has those capabilities and are often in use. Maybe best to try elsewhere to find fault....

I did not/do not claim superiority of knowledge [ cut and paste where I ever made such a statement, I dare ya ] and understanding to that of thousands of scholars… I did, and still do, call you out on all your high and mighty BS that had nothing at all to do with traditional nor even modern Conservatism in this thread. Also called you out on the your obvious mendacity of trying to tell me you were attempting to maintain the integrity of this shoddy-at-best thread, this thread having, again, hardly anything whatsoever to do with traditional Conservatism. Certainly nothing from you regarding true traditional Conservatism.

Oh, and I'd apologize for confusing you and Herin, and admit my mistake, yet you seem to share the same brain.

Had we to share just the one brain, that would put us the one ahead of you, it seems. BTW, I am pretty sure its Henrin.

You demonstrating your narrow and ignorant understanding of what slavery is does not win you the argument. The FACT is that there are many forms of slavery. While traditional, european, colonialist slavery entails ownership, not all forms do.

Bride-buying
Child labour
Debt bondage
Human trafficking
Impressment
Peonage
Penal labour
Sexual slavery
Wage slavery

I suggest you google each and every one of them and stop inflicting your arrogant ignorance on the rest of us.

Hmmmm, I am thoroughly famililar with most, quite familiar with the rest….so lets see….

Why? Why would it be remotely necessary to look any of them up as none of them make your case? You say that the term “wage slavery” is not a contradiction in terms. I have already proven that it, indeed, is. You can go through all the gyrations, turn your self into a pretzel of contortions, but as an Occam’s Razor guy, you should be on board with the old, “the simplest explanation is usually the correct one”. Already provided the case proving that point.

You are just too stubborn, or something else, to accept the fact. Certainly not my problem. Ciao.

 

[sangha]

Arguing that "wage slavery" doesn't exist because it's a "contradiction in terms" when the two words are interpreted according to their individual meanings is like claiming that "jumbo shrimp" do not exist

 

[Occam's Razor]

Why? Why would it be remotely necessary to look any of them up as none of them make your case? You say that the term “wage slavery” is not a contradiction in terms. I have already proven that it, indeed, is. You can go through all the gyrations, turn your self into a pretzel of contortions, but as an Occam’s Razor guy, you should be on board with the old, “the simplest explanation is usually the correct one”. Already provided the case proving that point.

You are just too stubborn, or something else, to accept the fact. Certainly not my problem. Ciao.

Ummm... WAGE SLAVERY proves my point. Proves you wrong. Proves your ignorance.

Back to the OP. If you pay someone less than what it costs them to live, for forty hours of work, you ARE stealing from them and infringing their rights. It IS wage slavery.

No need to contort... it's very straight forward. Your opinion is otherwise, I understand that. But the FACT is wage slavery is a scholarly accepted term to describe a form of oppression and exploitation.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Arguing that "wage slavery" doesn't exist because it's a "contradiction in terms" when the two words are interpreted according to their individual meanings is like claiming that "jumbo shrimp" do not exist

Nice one... but no... it's just arguing with morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest idiots.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Ummm... WAGE SLAVERY proves my point. Proves you wrong. Proves your ignorance.

Back to the OP. If you pay someone less than what it costs them to live, for forty hours of work, you ARE stealing from them and infringing their rights. It IS wage slavery.

No need to contort... it's very straight forward. Your opinion is otherwise, I understand that. But the FACT is wage slavery is a scholarly accepted term to describe a form of oppression and exploitation.

Ya got nothing. To simply say, and that is all you do, that you are right and I am wrong, well, I can see how you might get left behind in Republican and Conservative circles using that method of argumentation. You see , we like proof, truth, evidence, logic, facts... not made up "I told you so, (air quotes) "facts"" as all yours are styled. That may just be what goes for the real thing in liberal, and apparently liberal leaning libertarian, circles ... just do not know how a thinking person could not go crazy hearing all that crazy made up gibberish, much less to be spewing it.

There are only a few logic answers as to how/why that might occur.

Back to the OP? The OP was supposed to be about Traditional Conservatism... you still have yet to explain how Slavery, along with your ubiquitously used term, invented by liberals, the oxymoron-ish "wage slavery" has anything to do with TC.

But since we are off topic, I will ask these questions about your silly wage slavery: If an employer pays his workers more than what they are worth, more than the value that they bring in, who is stealing from whom then? If an employer has two employees and has to pay both a living wage and one works more efficiently/harder and deserves more , the other works less efficiently/less hard and so deserves less, but the employer only has enough to pay them both the required living wage or go out of business, who is stealing from whom in that scenario?

You know, I was informed that when most are questioned about being off topic, they don't explain they "just get back on topic". Well, you have not explained but you sure have never ever even been on topic. So why are you leading me and others so far astray with this non-thread-ish issue? Why don't we just sew that up right now? :lamo

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

:lamo

Arguing that "wage slavery" doesn't exist because it's a "contradiction in terms" when the two words are interpreted according to their individual meanings is like claiming that "jumbo shrimp" do not exist

I know you have a hard time keeping up and keeping things straight, did you not read the thread? I am not, as has been done before, going to repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat everything until you finally get it.

So just read what was already written, see if you can comprehend the nuance for once, k? :lamo

Just keep repeating to yourself, i know i can, i know i can, i know i can...

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Nice one... but no... it's just arguing with morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest idiots.

Heck, I am arguing with you, and you more than epitomize that phrase, so, apparently WRONG AGAIN....you sure must enjoy being wrong.

 

[sangha]

:lamo I know you have a hard time keeping up and keeping things straight, did you not read the thread? I am not, as has been done before, going to repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat everything until you finally get it.

So just read what was already written, see if you can comprehend the nuance for once, k? :lamo

Just keep repeating to yourself, i know i can, i know i can, i know i can...

If by reading the thread you mean "Did I read everything you wrote?", the answer is no. I rarely read more than a sentence or two of your posts, and only because it amuses me to see what the likes of you is going on about.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

If by reading the thread you mean "Did I read everything you wrote?", the answer is no. I rarely read more than a sentence or two of your posts, and only because it amuses me to see what the likes of you is going on about.

Interpretation: You don't like hearing logic and/or truth, it confuses and therefore offends you as you are quite aware that if you read it all you might have to question your opinions deeply and who knows if the capacity for that exists, eh? You have no answers, just one liners that are sometimes rather cute, oftimes just plain odd, very rarely even close to the truth.

You like to toss in little hand grenade-like tidbits and move on. Your attempts at real argumentation are filled with gigantic holes, useless or non-reliable facts and easily dis-proven logic.

So, now that you've tossed your little potato-masher in, time to just walk away...

 

[AngryOldGuy]

(apologies in advance if this poorly written wandering diatribe is just to dad blamed long for the ADHD crowd to wade through ~ oh look shiney)
(I'm only doing it with the hope that it will prompt Gaugingcatenate to return and lay on some more smackdown) :beatdeadhorse

As someone that has signed the front and back of paychecks I must say that I not only have used the term
wage slave over the decades but used it in a conversation with my kid just last night.
He is doing a paid summer internship that pays the equivalent of 100 grand a year, he was considering what he'll do after graduation from law school next May, 'go out on his own' or become a wage slave for a 100K a year... of course the choice is clear heh heh

The quickest way to become a Conservative is to run a successful for profit business.

Or perhaps to put it another way: the sole purpose of employees is to add too (i.e. increase) the bottom line.

I can tell you that during the eight years I had the term CEO 'legally' attached to my person I never ever ever ever even once had any encounter with government that EVER! added to the bottom line. nor did their interference in my private business
ever have any beneficial effect on the products and services I was delivering to my customers.

Being a wage slave is a choice, as a wage slave you can NEVER EVER be paid 'what you are worth' otherwise there would be no profit in it for the business. Now if you came to me and said I'll work off the books, I'd say hmmm ok straight away I can pay you 50% more for the same work but I then run the risk of being utterly destroyed by the government, where is the 'profit' in that? I suppose now it is all rather academic what with the looming outrageous levels of taxation and the unsupportable burden of socialized healthcare the slaves won't even have the option of being paid wages :crazy3:
The dead golden goose ain't laying no danged eggs, a socialist liberal commie blames the goose! yes children the purpose of business is not to 'create jobs' it exists solely to generate a profit for it's owner(s). If you had a goose that laid golden eggs wouldn't you value it? Or would you kill the durned thing have it for dinner then awake the next morning wondering: where are my gol-darned eggs?!?

 

[Hard Truth]

... If you hire someone for 40 hours a week, the least you can morally pay them is the minimum a person needs to live. Food, shelter, power, transport, clothing and savings. Pay them any less and you are stealing life from them. ....

I agree with the statement I quoted, but I can't recall ever seeing or hearing a self proclaimed conservative say that before. In fact. I would say that is one of the key controversies that divides liberals and conservatives. You are taking the liberal side of that controversy.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

and now tell me who is it that decides what is the moral minimum this vaunted wage slave deserves

 

[Hard Truth]

...
It was Kennedy and then Johnson that got us into Vietnam and escalated that war exponentially, respectively. Nixon was the one that got us out.

The Cold War was also started under the Truman Administration, and under his administration was one of the only two times that the Cold War turned HOT (Korea / the other was Vietnam under Kennedy).

All of the politicians your mentioned were moderate conservatives, not liberals. Kennedy and Johnson supported the liberal's side on civil rights (when they saw it was likely to prevail) and were liberal on welfare etc., but especially with foreign policy, they were not liberals overall. Nixon/Kissinger sabotaged the Paris peace talks, bombed Cambodia, seriously considered nuking Viet Nam (but was probably stopped by widespread anti-war protests) and continued the war for six years after he was elected.