Some one tell me what it means to be conservative.

[Basshole]

Hey Basshole' date='

 

I really do like you, man. You always present yourself well and aren't inflammatory (like I can sometimes be). I tell you what, come spend a weekend with me and my family and we'll not only teach you the meaning of conservatism, but I'll introduce you to some ultra left wing liberals who I occassionally hang with (just to get a good laugh at their insanity). I guarantee you that after the end of the week, you WILL definitely know the difference and will consider yourself a Conservative for the rest of your life.

 

[/quote']

 

Thank you james,

Sometimes I can be sarcastic but thats olny for comic relief and its never ment to harm. I will take you up on that offer sometimes, just make certain to have alot of food stocked up.

Im very curious about alot of things thats for certain, Im very open to new ideas.

 

To NEON CONE MANYE

 

I read that super long article and I like all the ideas except the conservatives view on the environment. Everything else I agree to. but it seems to me conservatives really are more like the controllers of there own destiny. Since government is less, the people have more rights. I like that.

[James Allen]

 

Thank you james' date='

Sometimes I can be sarcastic but thats olny for comic relief and its never ment to harm. I will take you up on that offer sometimes, just make certain to have alot of food stocked up.

Im very curious about alot of things thats for certain, Im very open to new ideas.

 

 

[/quote']

 

I like the sarcasm, Basshole. I'm a pretty sarcastic guy at times myself. I always have plenty of food around, and a lot of good converstion with folks, even the whacko liberals. Plus, we'd try to find some time to jam awhile! We'd have a great time!

[myspace.com/jessenoah]

get jordan on bass, someone on drums (please hope to god its not me)

get some brews and blues going

well, i dont drink

but blues and brews sounds really cool

[NeoConMan]

lets take a look @ what i really believe' date=' interesting to see where i fit

 

12-4 conservative, with 3 topics on the bubble[/quote']

 

You're making excellent progress.

 

Read James Allens's post about the grades, and think about how your A's and B's could be redistributed as all C's.

You would be "helping" other students, eh?

 

That translates directly to taxation.

 

 

Economy

When you get a job that pays well, you'll see how much you forfeit in taxes.

THEN you'll start paying attention to where it goes.

 

 

Death Penalty

Get married and have a baby.

THEN you'll rethink your stand against the death penalty when the thought occurs to you that YOUR family could be the ones tragically killed on the news tonight. Some sh!t head wants to lay a finger on YOUR wife of kid?

You'll kill him yourself.

 

 

Religion

When you get married, think about what those words in the ceremony mean.

When your child is born, tell me you don't believe in God.

Tell me those principles and values are not the best way to raise your child.

 

 

 

 

The environment thing is oversimplified here, get the facts and the financial costs in your hands.

Forget all the La-La Land baloney you hear on the "news" and college campus, look at what it costs us all in real dollars.

[FennRx]

neo,

 

i agree with you on some of the stuff (ie capital punishment- getting married changes EVERYTHING). but i do question your whole stance on 9/11. you like to say what would Gore have done? but that is a weak defense at best and you know it. and what gore would have done is completely speculative and irrelevent. you can opine all you want, but it doesnt matter. regardless of what Gore would have done, Bush doesn't get a pass from me on that one.

 

i saw in another thread you challenged a lib with "what would you have done?" well here's a bit of mine.

 

1) i would never have invited the taliban to this country, much less my own state.

2) i would never have been personally chummy with ANY of the bin Laden's. Osama might be the bad son, but he is still their son. they dont know where he is....***cough cough bullsh!t cough***

3) the second i learned it was al quaeda/taliban/bin laden, i would have detained everyone of them, not sent them out on a private jet.

4) i would have deployed every b-52 from japan, the phillipines or whereever and blown up afghanistan the same day/next day it happened.

5) i would have deployed the special forces faster, not waited a month.

6) i would have sent far more troops...the number of troops initially sent to afganistan was less than the number of active NYC police officers.

7) I wouldnt have invaded iraq at all. saddam was good for the balance of power. you know it, i know it, we all know it. and please dont pretend you care about genocide, because no one does unless it effects them ($$$)

 

what about you? what would you have done? exactly what bush did? something else entirely? and btw, i'm not trying to argue or pick a fight....sometimes things come across wrong on a forum.

[grampa]

Terms like conservative and liberal are misused by those who claim to be either and misused by those accusing one of being either. The definitions of these terms aren't set in stone, they change with the situation quite readily. It seems we can make the definitions anything we want. I consider myself ultra-liberal but I don't agree with all "liberal"policies. For instance, the rage against "big tobacco". I think smoking is a personal choice and not something forced on us by the evil cigarette makers. Another is gun control. I think most gun laws do nothing except maybe some kind of feel good thing. The definition is vague and very few fit into a category completely.

[NeoConMan]

i saw in another thread you challenged a lib with "what would you have done?" well here's a bit of mine.

 

1) i would never have invited the taliban to this country' date=' much less my own state.[/b']

Huh?

 

2) i would never have been personally chummy with ANY of the bin Laden's.

You think the CIA wasn't all over them? Trust me, anybody affilliated with Bin Laden's family was being watched.

 

3) the second i learned it was al quaeda/taliban/bin laden, i would have detained everyone of them, not sent them out on a private jet. Where's this private jet thing keep coming from? Really...

 

4) i would have deployed every b-52 from japan, the phillipines or whereever and blown up afghanistan the same day/next day it happened. Ditto. I would have bombed it again the next day to bounce the rubble.

 

5) i would have deployed the special forces faster, not waited a month.

That stuff takes time, but I wouldn't have wasted a second either.

 

6) i would have sent far more troops...

Absolutely.

 

7) I wouldnt have invaded iraq at all. saddam was good for the balance of power.

I tell everyone we should have invaded Iraq in 1993, but that was Clinton's stupidity.

So yes, in 2003 I would have pounded it if he didn't open every door on every palace and military installation.

Saddam was a dirty f-ing dog.

He was paying families of Palestinian suicide bombers $35,000 apiece, did you know that?

He gassed thousands of Kurd women and children with Ugly Stuff we knew he had because we knew where it came from.

Why do you think France, Germany and Russia were so dead set against us going in?

 

We f-ed around and gave him enough time to move anything he wanted to Syria, and who knows where after that.

 

 

 

what about you? what would you have done? exactly what bush did? something else entirely? and btw' date=' i'm not trying to argue or pick a fight....sometimes things come across wrong on a forum. [/quote']

Feel free to quiz me any time you wish.

I don't mind clarifying a point I made.

:-)

[KSG_Standard]

The Issues

 

Abortion - My personal belief is that abortion is murder, but my policy take on the subject would be to

overturn Roe v. Wade and let the individual states decide whether it should be legal, as the law was before

the ACLU and their friends got the supreme court to make up new law out of whole cloth. Roe v. Wade would have

been decided the other way, if the Supreme's at that time had followed the original intent of the constitution. It

was the libs that got the federal government involved in the issue to begin with...doubt me? Look it up.

 

 

Affirmative Action - I'm against it! People should be measured by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. Racism is wrong, whether is practiced by individuals, governments, businesses or higher education.

 

 

Death Penalty - I'm against it, it's applied unfairly and money/wealth affects the outcome of many/most trials, so "poor" people charged with Murder are more likely to be put to death than "rich" people. I couldn't execute someone, so I wouldn't ask someone else to do it either.

 

 

Economy -Free markets, with common sense regulations and low corporate taxes, offers the freedom for everyone to succeed.

 

 

Education - The federal government has NO business being involved in schools. Schools are funded locally and should be able to make their own decisions based on state and local rules. The federal government was never chartered to be involved in the schools. I am all for vouchers and free choice as to where parents send their kids to school. My wife is a public school teacher, so I know a little bit about this subject. Teachers should NOT be unionized and teacher pay should be based on performance.

 

 

The Environment - As an avid outdoorsman who spends EVERY weekend outside, I love the earth. Man-made global warming is a crock of doodoo. Do some research and you will at least become a skeptic about what AlGore says. Stop trying to bankrupt the US based on b.s. psuedo-science.

 

 

Gun Control - Gun control is using two hands!The Second Amendment gives the individual the right to keep and bear arms. Gun control laws do not thwart criminals. You have a right to defend yourself against criminals. More guns mean less crime. If you don't like the 2nd ammendment, that's your prerogative, but until you get enough people behind your cause to change the constitution, deal with it.

 

 

Health Care - Healthcare and Health Insurance are two different things, stop conflating the two. If you want a gold plated health insurance plan, get a better job and pay for it yourself. If you need healthcare, then go get it, it's already free if you can't pay for it.

 

Homeland Security - Wary of parts of the Patriot Act. Not paranoid about it. There is NO right to privacy!

 

 

Immigration - Protect the Borders, just like most other countries in the world do. Support legal immigration at current numbers, Maybe higher numbers for certain groups, but do not support illegal immigration. Government MUST enforce immigration laws. Oppose ANY amnesty plan for illegal immigrants. Those who break the law by entering the U.S. illegally MUST not have the same rights as those who obey the law by entering legally.

 

 

Religion - The phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. The First Amendment to the Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This prevents the government from establishing a national church. However, it does not prevent God from being acknowledged in schools and government buildings. I do not want ANY religion being taught in school

that's not the job of the school, it's the job of the parent.

 

 

Same-Sex Marriage - Marriage is between one man and one woman. Let the states vote on it. Stop using the courts to "grant" rights that do not exist, stop using the courts to get what can't can't get at the ballot box. No federal constitutional amendment, unless the state courts get in the way.

 

Social Security - Social Security is a ponzi scheme and such a plan would be illegal in the private sector.The current Social Security system is in serious financial trouble. Changes are necessary because the U.S. will be unable to maintain the current system it in the future. Support proposal to allow a portion of Social Security dollars withheld to be put into an account chosen by the individual, not the government. Stop paying SS benefits to people that did not pay into the system. Stop spending the SS "trust fund" and set the money aside to pay the existing obligations. If we must have SS, then the Congress should be forced to participate too.

 

 

Taxes - Support lower taxes and a smaller government. Lower taxes create more incentive for people to work, save, invest, and engage in entrepreneurial endeavors. Money is best spent by those who earn it. Better yet, implement a "Fair" tax or "flat" tax. Quit trying to soak the rich to pay for B.S...Stop useless gov't spending.

 

 

United Nations (UN) - The UN has repeatedly failed in its essential mission: to preserve world peace. The wars, genocide and human rights abuses of the majority of its member states (and the UN's failure to stop them) prove this point. History shows that the United States, not the UN, is the global force for spreading freedom, prosperity, tolerance and peace. The U.S. should never subvert its national interests to those of the UN. Move the UN out of the US, stop funding it with tax dollars.

 

 

War in Iraq - This was a preemptive strike to protect the U.S. All intelligence indicated that Saddam Hussein possessed and used weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in the past and was prepared to use them again. He would not allow United Nations weapons inspectors to confirm his claim that he had destroyed his WMDs.A democracy can succeed in Iraq if the people are given the opportunity to create one. ALL people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, these include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

 

War On Terror/Terrorism - The world toward which the Militant Islamists strive cannot peacefully co-exist with the Western world. In the last decade, Militant Islamists have repeatedly attacked Americans and American interests here and abroad. The terrorists MUST be stopped and DESTROYED. Take the fight to the enemy, it's better to fight them somewhere else than here. Anyone that hides, supports, provides comfort and funding to terrorists is my enemy.

 

 

Welfare - Degrades the human spirit, weakens the country and makes people dependent. Oppose long-term welfare. We need to provide opportunities to make it possible for poor and low-income workers to become self-reliant. It is far more compassionate and effective to encourage a person to become self-reliant, rather than keeping them dependent on the government for money. Government is the LEAST efficient way to provide charity.

 

 

War on Drugs - Stop wasting my money. Decriminalize pot, spend some of the money on education instead of law enforcement. Life sentences in federal prison for ANYONE that sells drugs to minors.

 

Global Trade - ALL for it. May the best run companies with the best products win! If we are expecting the rest of the world to buy our goods and services then we must be willing to buy theirs.

 

Right to Work - Opposed to "closed shop" rules, opposed to "Employee Free Choice" act. If you don't like what an employer is offering to pay for a job, then find another job. Pay should be commensurate with work and merit, not based on years of service/seniority. OSHA protects workers from unsafe work environments, we don't need the unions to provide safety rules.

 

Federal Reserve/IMF - NUKE them, they are not elected, they are not accountable, they are dangerous.

 

Term Limits - Congress should be term limited, just like the President.

[rocketman]

Neo, just to provide further clarification. I think that every professor at a research university should be able to pay for their own salaries through their research. The ones that can't shouldn't be paid nearly as much as the ones that can. I got tenure 8 years ago and I still hold myself to that standard (the day it stops is the day I will quit). I could actually care less about tenure for myself to be honest with you and I gladly welcome a yearly review of what I do.

 

As I mentioned above I am a 3-sigma outlier though. Yes it does bother me when professors come in for a few hours a day (and yes I do see this), teach their class and generally cruise through their careers. I do believe that most of them are overpaid for what they do. What really irks me is when they demand equal pay as me. What you state about academia is much closer to reality than what I believe in, so keep it coming!

[myspace.com/jessenoah]

Religion - The phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. The First Amendment to the Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This prevents the government from establishing a national church. However, it does not prevent God from being acknowledged in schools and government buildings. I do not want ANY religion being taught in school

that's not the job of the school, it's the job of the parent.

 

im as religious as they come, and i want my govt officals to practise good christian values, like honesty, compassion, ect................

 

but i dont want my GOVT and my religion geting mixed together, or else you end up with religious radicals in control of the govt, and the masses, and then all hell breaks loose

 

my 2 cents, let the flaming begin

[FennRx]

neo,

 

taliban were in texas in 1997 for oil talks

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm

 

bin ladens and other saudi flown out of the country post 9/11

 

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12;

[max2343]

Yo Neo. You must watch a movie by Michael Moore called "Fahrenheit 9/11 made in 2004 a Documentary that addresses the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, outlinning the reasons the U.S. has become a target for hatred and Terrorism. Criticizing President George W. Bush's response to the Attacks and reinforcing his theory that the Bush Administration used the tragic event to push it Agenda. Moore also traces alleged deallings that connect two generations of the Bush family with Osama bin laden's clan.

 

I can tell you as an American (and a damn Hillbilly) that I was pissed after I seen that one. Bush and Bin Ladens uncle sitting in Truman's Balcony at the White House with Bush allowing him to smoke a Cigar tossing his ashes on the floor both laughing as they overlook the Pentagon smothering from all the fire damage.

 

Meanwhile the hole U.S is in a "NO-FLY-ZONE" and the only ones that are in the air are military and 1 or 2 commercial flites with all of Bin Ladens ***-ociates and Family.

 

I have a Good Friend that was called in when the no fly-zone came into Effect and he Described telling commercial Pilots that where given 30 mins to land anywhere and I mean anywhere and get out of the air or be shot down, that where Begging just for another 30 mns "NO F--- NO" he was ordered to say, I'll shoot you down and he was ordered to do so. I mean even organ donor plans that where in route to hospitals were not up there JUST BIN LADEN'S. THAT'S SICK.

 

Anyways, watch the movie and do a little internet research on who was up there in the no fly zone with a Military Escort.

[Basshole]

 

I like the sarcasm' date=' Basshole. I'm a pretty sarcastic guy at times myself. I always have plenty of food around, and a lot of good converstion with folks, even the whacko liberals. Plus, we'd try to find some time to jam awhile! We'd have a great time![/quote']

 

If I wasnt sarcastic I would have probly killed myself by now jk

I enjoy conversations with anybody, im a freindly guy people tell me (kinda sucks when when you are 6'4 240 lbs, people think you are mean)

 

I love jamming my influence are mostly

-Rush

-Led Zeppelin

-Boston

-Audioslave

[KSG_Standard]

This Michael Moore? I'd rather gouge my own eyes out with a rusty spoon that see any movie that this fat, useless, anti-American, piece of crap, liar made...

[FennRx]

he's always called a liar, but he's never been sued for libel.

[KSG_Standard]

I don't think it's very easy for public officials to sue for libel...

 

Public Figures

 

Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.

 

The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.

 

A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".

 

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#3

[max2343]

he's always called a liar' date=' but he's never been sued for libel.[/quote']

 

That's sooo true, FennRX. I think that their is alot of truth to his movies.

[NeoConMan]

I saw Fahrenheit 9/11.

I saw Fahren-hype 9/11.

 

The first was complete and utter Michael Moore bullsh!t.

The second one made me think.

 

Check THAT one out.

[NeoConMan]

taliban were in texas in 1997 for oil talks

In 1997? I don't care.

 

They were just one more bunch of nutty-*** Muslim fanatics trying to make a buck.

My family has been in the Oil Biz since WWII' date=' that kind of power play was nothing new.

 

Afghanistan had been at war with the Soviets for 9 years - with our help - and then went to work on each other after the Commies pulled out in 1988.

 

 

 

bin ladens and other saudi flown out of the country post 9/11

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12;

I've heard more pros and cons, more cloak and dagger bullsh!t on this than I can possibly fathom.

 

I personally believe that if any Bin Laden family members (out of several hundred) were giving even fuzzy info to the CIA, NSA or even FBI, they would have been removed from the country with velvet gloves to keep them talking to us.

Think of it as a Witness Protection Program for the ultra rich.

It may very well be true, and it's not as wrong as you may think....

 

Those people for the most part were worlds away from UBL, they didn't want to be involved in any of his Jihad bullsh!t.

 

Remember, UBL was trying to blow us up in 1993 and had released several videotaped proclamations encouraging all good muslims to rise up and strike the Great Satan - the US.

The CIA knew who he was.

 

Let me put it this way;

If I already knew who Bin Laden was on the morning of September 11 by simply watching the TV news, reading the papers and Time/Newsweek magazines - then you can be pretty fxcking sure the CIA knew who he was.

 

I told my girlfriend when she called to tell me a second plane hit the South Tower and we were indeed under attack

"Remember this name - Usama Bin Laden..."

 

"Who?"

 

"Just remember what I told you."

 

 

Two days later she calls me to say she just heard his name on the news.

See how smart I am?

[max2343]

UBL's Family members ratting out to whom ever would listen to any of the outfits even if it were trival bullshit info

" They would of been removed from this country with Velvet Gloves and Given Champagne and Duck or Wine and Lamb heads and intestines (or what ever the hell they eat) to keep them from talking to us"

Really

Why

And Neo you speak of the "CIA" and "NSA" as those spooks say even "FBI" (As they all speak down to "FBI")

What the hell do you do anyways. Wasn't it monitoring **** at a Nuke site or Hoover dam or something.

 

Man your not a Spook, are-ya. Your not going to reposition a satellite to view me scatching my nuts in my robe at my front door getting my paper in the morning outside and post it on youtube for grins just as a Show of power.

 

No really can you Elaborate a little more the need for "NSA" or "CIA" to arrange an "ESCORT OUT OF THE COUNTRY" During a Tragic American event that was considered War in a "No fly zone state" across all American Skies, just because Long standing Business Associates of the Buch's may have said something Triveal to certain Agencies.

JUST BECAUSE THEY MIGHT TALK TO US.

 

Franklin. D Roosevelt Knowingly did nothing about the Attack on Peal Harbor Dec 7th, 1941. Because it was his "Back door to War" with "HITLER" He invisioned what he had to do, and in the end, Maybe he was right.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pear.html

What will we read about in 70 yrs.

About,"The Bush's and the Ladin's Family's and what they did for Money" I'll give you a clue.

The frikin oil compaines have all posted the Biggest Gains/Profits and the highest Gains/Profits, something like 800% every Quarter since all this **** Started. The Highest of Anything/Anytime since they have been taking records.

They are Bullshitting us and Robbing us.

[max2343]

I don't think it's very easy for public officials to sue for libel...

 

Public Figures

 

Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution' date=' as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.

 

The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.

 

A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".

 

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#3[/quote']

Sure it's not Easy and Actual Malice is a vary Difficult standard for a Plaintiff to establish and indeed in only a handful of cases over the last decades has a Plaintiff been Successful in establishing the requisite of Actual Malice to prove Defamation. Only because if the Plaintiff is a Public Figure or Official in the legal sense it has nothing to do with "ill will" or "Disliking someone" or wishing them Harm.

Michael Moore made a Documentry movie on how Buch made money and has ties with OBL and how he helped his family and a lot of other things that if were untrue would fulfill the requite of "Knowing that it was false" and or "With reckless disregard for the statement or statement's truth or falsity.

But I'm sure with all the best legal minds in the U.S. Available to Buch, they all told him that any 1st year Law Student would successfully Defend such a Action and besides its allways best to just leave that kinda **** alone.

You just end up adding more Fuel to a fire. And I dont think that their has EVER been or is their any case Example of any Plaintiff ever being a "President of the U.S" It just don't happen. They use other means.

[Gitfidl]

Anyone who disagrees with a liberal. The liberals "label" them neocon, Nazi, red neck, right winger, Klanner, Facist, racist, or conservative. If you want to avoid being so labelled all you need to do is ... drool on your shirt, walk like an ape, have a variety of pins sticking in your skin (to show how brave you are)(but be afraid of both guns and military service), expect money-for-nothing, drop out of college or high school, have several colors of hair, grow a pony tail, get a tattoo on you nose or eyes, wear your hat backwards, have a 500 decibel speaker in your car, believe that some day you will win a lottery, believe that anything from the government is free, believe in second chances, believe that "trying" is as good as "doing" it, smoke pot, and own a 4 door car upon which no door is the same color as another door and none of the doors are the same color of the car with a "peace" symbol in the back window and a "stop global warming" bumper sticker. If you do all (or even most) of those things then that is considered prima facie evidence that you are NOT a conservative.

[milod]

... This may sound horrible to some that it's not as definitive as some of the folks here, nor as crass... but I think the label "conservative" has become pretty well damaged by schism among those who might in general call themselves "Republicans" or "Libertarians."

 

I think the older you get and have seen and/or studied the history of politics over the past couple of centuries, it's harder to put generic labels on yourself, let alone others.

 

The "left wing" hasn't changed much, though. As has been mentioned, increased government intervention and social engineering, taxation and central control. I find it hard, however, to call them "liberals" in the sense of a 19th Century "liberal." And they're certainly not very liberal with much other than other people's money.

 

On the other hand, "conservative" nowadays tends to include those who would exercise just as much control over others as the "liberals." That's why I rather dislike the "c" word since many given that label actually would prefer virtually no laws governing conduct unless it brings a direct threat to others.

 

So... Frankly I think the word has become too broad in covering, as has been written above, anybody who doesn't agree with the specific social agendas of "liberals."

 

Whatever...

[Gitfidl]

True enough. This 21st century is going to bring about a lot of changes in the next couple of years. Labels and terminology will most assuredly be very much changed. The government may own banks (much as they do and have FNMA/GNMA and bankers may be political hacks appointed to serve parties. I doubt however that such banks could succeed (and obviously Fannie/Freddie did not. They failed. If the government dominates the board of GM and Chrysler -- especially in view of a previous Chrysler bail out (Iacocca) then how do they let them fail? And how do they make them succeed -- especially given the impossible union relationship? If the government OWES trillions and trillions (the in-crowd was mad at Bush???) and they kill off the private sector (because they don't trust them -- and over tax/over regulate) then what will they atax to pay the trillions? Maybe the won't pay it. At this very moment they are in MAJOR trouble and it can only get worse. Buffet says (and he's right ) taht 2009 will be a disaster and 2010 does not look like it gets any better. The stock markets agree. They are in free fall. So WHAT will a liberal/conservative be when the major production companies are owned by the government and the unions own the government and the Japanese and Chinese beat the socks off the government owned bureau/corporations? WHAT will a liberal/conservative be when there is no Republican party (because there is none) and it's just the Democrats and the Communist Party USA? And the courts are Clinton hippies and half the population are non-citizen ACORNists?? What will the Senate be like when California and New York are half the population of the US and hald of them are illegals? The 20th Century has ended and they 20th Century ideologies are gone. Nursing the unions and unionized companies along into the 21st Century on avoids being competitive in the 21st Century world. That wil prolong the economic adjustments needed to be IN the 21str Century economic community. But that is what THEY are doing and is that liberal or conservative?

 

AND .. the U.S. is no longer in the dominant position it held after WWII -- it cannot make policy for the rest of the world. We got used to that but more and more that dominance has been challenged and successfully. Russia, China, India, Islamics have all defied US policy and so has Europe. Latin American never adhered to it. So we are no longer in any driver seat. Europe has learned to be a coalition (NATO). We have not. I do not think union bigots are liberal except in label. Unions are anachronisms. So is workman's clomp. Universal health care is economically impossible for the foreseeable future. So that is the liberal anthem at the 4th of July picnic -- but it is not possible. No feasible.

 

The Hippies will overwhelm Medicare and Social Security ahd that will collapse in less than 5 years (given the current exigence). Previously they might have extended it until 2020. Ten percent of the population (that has a job) cannot pay for the rest. What would be the point of working for nothing? (A paid volunteer??) The now 100% "liberal" government can authorize anything they want, but they cannot pay for it. THEY CAN chase more business off shore. (and that will probably happen anyway). But stupidity will drive it off faster and to a larger extent.

 

Since they refuse to permit theuse of domestic energy supplies -- vast wealth will leave the US and go off shore to obtain energy. Vast wealth will go off shore to obtain engineering, produced goods, even food, pharmaceuticals. So they can hardly e be seen as "liberals" and there is no (ZERO) opposition at this point. There is no "other" party today.

 

What will the 21st Century (and the next 5 years ) make of the U.S.? It's really anybody's guess. Buffet says it will be a disaster. I think he is right.

[NeoConMan]

Gitfidl,

C'mon now, you know nobody believes all that you just posted.

 

Well, I do, but that only makes two of us.

 

Hope you have a good income like the wife and I do so you can help further the Leftist agenda thru your labor.

 

 

 

Good job there!

:-)