Are you a conservative?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date

Are you a conservative? Pick all that apply

  • I oppose multiculturalism

    Votes: 4 57.1%

  • I believe Islam is a threat to my country

    Votes: 7 100.0%

  • I hate Marxism

    Votes: 7 100.0%

  • Liberals are traitors who should be punished

    Votes: 4 57.1%
  • Total voters
    7
Damocles said:
lol.

That's like going to that idiot Phelps' page to find out all about homosexuals. And before you get there Phelps is not a conservative, he is a reactionary. Somebody who works to shock and or offend in order to create change in government activity/laws/policy is not "conservative"...
Click to expand...

Excuse me...but I don't know any Phelps. You spoke as if I would know what you were talking about. After googling Phelps and homosexuality, I came across Fred Phelps. Which makes your analogy all the more strange and irrelevant. Scott Bidstrup is no "fly-by-night". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Bidstrup.
EssaysIn "The Best Government Money Can Rent" he has denounced the United States Supreme Court decision (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) allowing corporations to spend any amount of money they like on political campaigns as "the final triumph of ideology over reason and pragmatic reality."[2] Other essays attempt to counter the official United States pro-Israeli position in the Israel-Palestine conflict, construct a history of homophobia, explore the problem of climate change, skeptically analyze Christian fundamentalism and allege that much of the ideology of conservatism is grounded in self-interest rather than egalitarianism..

Apparently, he's somebody who knows what he is talking about. Further, I believe him.
 
Much easier to make up your own definitions about someone's ideology and argue against that instead of facing the reality of your opponents position.
 
Notice that when Teatards are ashamed to own their extreme views they publicly pretend to distance themselves from the hate-mongers whose tenets they embrace?

It's the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.
 
bravo said:
" start making the compromises to form winning coalitions"..........?

interesting.....
Tell me Mott....
How would you have compromised with the Nazis?.......Just exterminate the Jews that refuse to leave Germany?.....Limit the number of concentration camps ?.....
How would you have compromised with your local KKK ?.....No more than one lynching per year ?.....Limit the number of black churches firebombed to 4 a year....?
How would you compromise with Syria, or Somalia or Libya ?.....Keep the killing confined to your own country and don't export the violence ?....How about if they limit the deaths to no more that 500 per month...?

Do you believe compromise is right in all circumstances?...Should the US plan for bankrupcy be extended to not occur for 2 more years or 6 more years.....?
Should the US embrace socialism totally or should we limit our socialism to just healthcare....?
Should the US set a limit on earnings so the people all make the same or at least similar amounts of money ?
How about if we allow only one car per family unit ?(of course, only hybrids allowed)
How much freedom do we really really require to be satisfied ?
Do we really need borders ? Shouldn't all the states be of equal size ?
Aren't bombs and bullets wasteful spending ? Isn't prison inhumane treatment ?
Click to expand...

You're an idiot and a political noob Pavo. As Tom Jefferson said about the self apparent reality of all politics "No man can have all things in all ways.". You can afford to be a rigid ideologue when you're politicking but governing requires making acceptable compromises in order to serve the peoples interest and if you can't do that, they you have no business in Government.
 
Archimedes said:
In what way are you fiscally conservative? I cannot think of a single issue on which you're not on the extreme left, whether social or fiscal.
Click to expand...

Brent, you are a far right winger. Hell Attilah the Hun is a god damned bleeding heart commie pinko liberal compared to you! You're problem, as with many right wingers, is that you do not understand the distinction between a conservative and a reactionary. You sir are no conservative. You are a reactionary.
 
Damn Yankee said:
I'd say anyone who believes in Keynesian economics is not only stupid, but a complete fucking moron. That, and anyone who voted for a bitch to be president.
Click to expand...

Funny, that's what I say about those laughable fools who actually buy into supply side economics, man you'd have to have total shit for brains to buy into that vodoo shit! LOL
 
How many times are the Teatards going to trot out 'trickle down' and insist that this time it'll work, because......?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Funny, that's what I say about those laughable fools who actually buy into supply side economics, man you'd have to have total shit for brains to buy into that vodoo shit! LOL
Click to expand...

I'd say you are both properly fucked in the head given that neither has actually been tested as intended in the past 50 years.
 
Is it strange that I respect Republican politicians from the past (i.e. Ike, Lincoln, or even Teddy, even though he was crazy) more than I do any of the "conservatives" of today? I feel that the "conservative" brand has fractured and become unfocused. Many are very reactionary, but that is the nature of this country as a whole. Look at the whole debt/deficit ordeal. I guarantee you that we did not get $14T in debt over night, but it was Tea Partyers that hyped it up. Recent conservatives have failed at fiscal issues. Since Carter, Democrats (on average) have increased federal spending by 9.9%, the debt by 4.2%, yet increased GDP by 12.6%. Republicans since Reagan have increased federal spending by 12.1% (2.2% more than the 'socialist party'), increased the federal debt by a whopping 36.4% (almost 9 times the Democrats), and only increased GDP by 10.7% (1.4% lower than the business unfriendly Democrats). In fact, both Carter and Clinton had a surplus during their presidency. The worst offender for increasing Federal debt was Reagan, not Obama (so far anyways).
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Funny, that's what I say about those laughable fools who actually buy into supply side economics, man you'd have to have total shit for brains to buy into that vodoo shit! LOL
Click to expand...
Except, of course, that Supply Side works every time its tried, and Keynesian never has worked. :)
 
Superfreak said:
I'd say you are both properly fucked in the head given that neither has actually been tested as intended in the past 50 years.
Click to expand...



As predicted - Professor Superfreaky claims trickle down and supply side didn't work because they weren't tested as intended, and firearms expert Dumb Yankee claims supply side has worked every time....LOL.
 
Tags said:
Is it strange that I respect Republican politicians from the past (i.e. Ike, Lincoln, or even Teddy, even though he was crazy) more than I do any of the "conservatives" of today? I feel that the "conservative" brand has fractured and become unfocused. Many are very reactionary, but that is the nature of this country as a whole. Look at the whole debt/deficit ordeal. I guarantee you that we did not get $14T in debt over night, but it was Tea Partyers that hyped it up. Recent conservatives have failed at fiscal issues. Since Carter, Democrats (on average) have increased federal spending by 9.9%, the debt by 4.2%, yet increased GDP by 12.6%. Republicans since Reagan have increased federal spending by 12.1% (2.2% more than the 'socialist party'), increased the federal debt by a whopping 36.4% (almost 9 times the Democrats), and only increased GDP by 10.7% (1.4% lower than the business unfriendly Democrats). In fact, both Carter and Clinton had a surplus during their presidency. The worst offender for increasing Federal debt was Reagan, not Obama (so far anyways).
Click to expand...

Now take a look at who controlled CONGRESS... you know... the ones that actually PASS the budget.

FACT: No President since Ike has lowered the national debt year over fiscal year. Not Carter, Not Clinton. The imaginary Clinton surpluses were BUDGET surpluses, not ACTUAL surpluses. I have never heard anyone claim Carter had a surplus before. Do link us up to that data. As for Clinton... he had a BUDGET surplus with a REP led Congress.

You are 100% wrong with regards to your Reagan vs. Obama comparison. Obama has been far worse. Adjust the $1.6 trillion in debt added under Reagan (for now we will ignore the FACT that he had Tip sitting in the House the entire time) and adjust it at a 3% rate of inflation over 23 years and you get $3.15 trillion in today's dollars over 8 years. Obama has increased it what? Almost $3.5 trillion in under 3 years.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Except, of course, that Supply Side works every time its tried, and Keynesian never has worked. :)
Click to expand...

Supply side has never been fully implemented, but the limited version Reagan put in place did work. Bush Sr. fucked it up with his tax increases.

What is needed today is exactly what Reagan did then. Simplify the tax code. Eliminate loopholes and deductions and keep the tax brackets low (corp rates should be eliminated.... but that is another topic). It amazes me that Reps are against the elimination of deductions and loopholes.... fucking Norquist needs to go or people need to stop listening to that moron. At the same time, the Dems need to let go of their hatred of corps and their constant 'tax the rich more' mantra. That is equally moronic.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Except, of course, that Supply Side works every time its tried, and Keynesian never has worked. :)
Click to expand...

You are also wrong about Keynes. What Keynes proposed and FDR originally implemented worked as intended, the problem came when moronic politicians morphed Keynes into something that it was not.
 
Superfreak said:
Supply side has never been fully implemented, but the limited version Reagan put in place did work. Bush Sr. fucked it up with his tax increases. What is needed today is exactly what Reagan did then. Simplify the tax code. Eliminate loopholes and deductions and keep the tax brackets low (corp rates should be eliminated.... but that is another topic). It amazes me that Reps are against the elimination of deductions and loopholes.... fucking Norquist needs to go or people need to stop listening to that moron. At the same time, the Dems need to let go of their hatred of corps and their constant 'tax the rich more' mantra. That is equally moronic.
Click to expand...



Reagan ran up a deficit. He did bring inflation down, but otherwise his record is not good.


Tax cuts in the face of the facts will produce more of the same.




Two thirds of corporations now pay zero Federal income taxes, and most Fortune 500 companies pay a lower percentage of earnings in Federal taxes than do ordinary workers.




We are told that excessive taxation is all that stands in the way of job creation.




Unleash the power of the market by reducing the corporate tax rate, goes the refrain.




Yet corporations are already sitting atop a pile of $1.9 trillion in cash reserves, which they are holding onto.




Adding another trillion or so that that stack is not going to encourage a manufacturing plant to ramp up production when consumers are being hammered so hard that there are not enough buyers for the goods that are already on the market.




The job creation premise, of course, is a smokescreen to get public buy in for funneling yet more money into the pockets of the wealthy.








http://www.counterpunch.org/elich07112011.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top