primary bs

[jmacomber68w]

And lots of Democrats/liberals think Bush is an extreme conservative.

 

 

lots of rep/consers do to, we did get more govt and less taxes, when we should have gotten less taxes and less govt, but its hard to go less govt during the only post 911 terms, i figure that over the years both parties will get back to what they do best, which is getting nothing done anyways, i would LOVE a serious 3+ party system

[tommyjacobs]

I think there are a lot of people who agree with conservative fiscal policy but disagree with the Republican platform on many social issues which is designed to appease the Religious Right. There isn't a party who supports free trade, free markets, small government, business-friendly policies, and personal responsibility that also supports abortion rights, gay rights, environmental protection, etc.

 

You can get one set of policies with Democrats and the other with Republicans, but there aren't any major parties that support both. Many who consider themselves moderates or independents would support candidates with these views, but it doesn't match the existing party platforms.

[bjorn_skurj]

I would say we got more government with less taxes.

But somehow, it just doesn't seem like a bargain to me.

[ikol]

But somehow, it just doesn't seem like a bargain to me.

 

Indeed, though I would bet you want more government with more taxes while I want less of both.

[Good Old Neon]

Indeed, though I would bet you want more government with more taxes while I want less of both.

 

I hear this position from many if not most conservatives, yet, in fact it is not true. Less government means less social spending and cuts to those sorts of programs, programs that help people who are in need of help, while conversely, much more control and government intrusion into our personal lives. How and why is not allowing gay folks to marry smaller government, less government intrusion? And, why is it that many so called conservatives want to weaken the borders that separate church and state?

 

The fact is, if you are truly conservative, you would run, not walk, but run screaming from the current crop of GOP contenders. Yet, here

[ikol]

I hear this position from many if not most conservatives, yet, in fact it is not true. Less government means less social spending and cuts to those sorts of programs, programs that help people who are in need of help, while conversely, much more control and government intrusion into our personal lives. How and why is not allowing gay folks to marry smaller government, less government intrusion? And, why is it that many so called conservatives want to weaken the borders that separate church and state?

 

The fact is, if you are truly conservative, you would run, not walk, but run screaming from the current crop of GOP contenders. Yet, here

[John Smith]

And lots of Democrats/liberals think Bush is an extreme conservative.

 

I hust consider him an extremist. Extremist in that he has no wiggle room or negotiaiton room in his repetoir. He wants what he wants period. Damn other positions.

 

From my side, Obama is leftwing. For someone further left than him, he's a moderate.

 

From where most of the 30% of the far right view the world, anyone with a D next to their name is as liberal as you can get, even when they are 100% in the middle. Heck sometimes if they don't like the R, Like MCCain, they label him liberal. Of course the one constant is that the far right has effectively sold liberal as a dirty word. If we take the most liberal country in the world, say Sweeden and compare it to a country with a conservatives dream (little and weak government, little or no taxes) Lets say Somalia and I know which one I would take. Face it countries where social darwinism is practiced are failures and that is what the ultra right really wants is a country with social darwinism as the rule.

[jakobnicholas]

IThe fact is, if you are truly conservative, you would run, not walk, but run screaming from the current crop of GOP contenders. Yet, here

[Beltmann]

When I was in college, I used to watch a lot of C-SPAN. Often I would watch Congressional speeches or debates, and then, out of curiosity, I'd listen to Rush. It was really something listening to him egregiously twist what I had just seen with my own eyes. Unfortunately, a lot of people took (and still take) his "analysis" as fair journalism. Me, I'd just call it lying.

[jakobnicholas]

When I was in college, I used to watch a lot of C-SPAN. Often I would watch Congressional speeches or debates, and then, out of curiosity, I'd listen to Rush. It was really something listening to him egregiously twist what I had just seen with my own eyes. Unfortunately, a lot of people took (and still take) his "analysis" as fair journalism. Me, I'd just call it lying.

 

 

I don't always agree with Rush, but I respect his consistency. He's dulled with age, but he used to be one of the most entertaining and fresh broadcasters in America.

 

Listening to Rush does not brainwash anyone. But watching CNN all the time can.

 

 

As for an entertaining radio personality to make you think, listen to Micahel Savage.

[Good Old Neon]

I don't always agree with Rush, but I respect his consistency. He's dulled with age, but he used to be one of the most entertaining and fresh broadcasters in America.

 

Listening to Rush does not brainwash anyone. But watching CNN all the time can.

 

 

As for an entertaining radio personality to make you think, listen to Micahel Savage.

 

If by consistency you mean the way in which he has spent his entire broadcast career spouting the most inconsistent, outright inaccurate, some would say, lies, to have ever been thrust upon the willfully ignorant, gullible masses, if you meant that, then yeah, he

[Reni]

Michael Savage?? are you serious??

[Beltmann]

As for an entertaining radio personality to make you think, listen to Micahel Savage.

I occasionally listen to Savage. Entertaining, yes. Thought-provoking? Not in the way he probably imagines.

[ikol]

From where most of the 30% of the far right view the world, anyone with a D next to their name is as liberal as you can get, even when they are 100% in the middle. Heck sometimes if they don't like the R, Like MCCain, they label him liberal. Of course the one constant is that the far right has effectively sold liberal as a dirty word. If we take the most liberal country in the world, say Sweeden and compare it to a country with a conservatives dream (little and weak government, little or no taxes) Lets say Somalia and I know which one I would take. Face it countries where social darwinism is practiced are failures and that is what the ultra right really wants is a country with social darwinism as the rule.

 

How about we compare Cuba and Hong Kong instead. And Somalia isn't a conservative's dream because it lacks the one government function that conservatives favor - security.

[Reni]

I loved it when Michael Savage suggested we send smallpox infested blankets to Iranian earthquake victims. Classy dude that Michael Savage.

[ikol]

Appropriately named, though.

[LouieB]

The bottom line is this....enjoy the Obama presidency....it wouldn't have been possible even a few years ago...

 

LouieB

[John Smith]

How about we compare Cuba and Hong Kong instead. And Somalia isn't a conservative's dream because it lacks the one government function that conservatives favor - security.

 

I disagree. I don't think conservatives favor security I think they USE security as one more way to segment the market in the same manner that they use abortion every election cycle but then do nothing about it. It all goes back to NSC 68, a Truman era document that ultimately led to what Eisenhower called the military industrial complex. If anything conservatives like the notion of tossing huge amounts of money from one end of the private sector via income taxes, to another end of the private sector, the defense industry using government as a conduit. Then using the publicly funded military for offensive purposes to secure markets and resources, oor at least that is what the PNAC wants and believes and this adminsitration is heavy on PNAC membership.

 

Oh and I didn't choose Cuba or North Korea because they are totalitarian more so than ebing the far left. HONG KONG????? Hong Kong????? Are you serious?

[ikol]

I disagree. I don't think conservatives favor security I think they USE security as one more way to segment the market in the same manner that they use abortion every election cycle but then do nothing about it. It all goes back to NSC 68, a Truman era document that ultimately led to what Eisenhower called the military industrial complex. If anything conservatives like the notion of tossing huge amounts of money from one end of the private sector via income taxes, to another end of the private sector, the defense industry using government as a conduit. Then using the publicly funded military for offensive purposes to secure markets and resources, oor at least that is what the PNAC wants and believes and this adminsitration is heavy on PNAC membership.

 

Is that what you believed when you were conservative? I can only speak for my beliefs, and I favor security as a legitimate and necessary function of the government. Your whole schizophrenic view of conservatives doesn't apply to me.

 

 

 

Oh and I didn't choose Cuba or North Korea because they are totalitarian more so than ebing the far left. HONG KONG????? Hong Kong????? Are you serious?

 

What's wrong with Hong Kong?

[MrRain422]

Appropriately named, though.

 

He actually changed it to Savage. His real name, Weiner, is even more appropriate, however.

[jakobnicholas]

I listen to talk radio sometimes to be entertained. And Savage is very entertaining. A little off his rocker? Perhaps. But very entertaining.

[John Smith]

Is that what you believed when you were conservative? I can only speak for my beliefs, and I favor security as a legitimate and necessary function of the government. Your whole schizophrenic view of conservatives doesn't apply to me.

 

 

What's wrong with Hong Kong?

 

I believed n sound fiscal policy when I was a REPUBLICAN, you yourself have more than once admitted that there is a big difference between republican and conservative. I believed and still believe in a strong national defense. Star wars is not in the picture. Invading foreign nations is not in the picture, 800 military bases around the world and military spending greater than the rest of the world combined is not in the picture. Being the worlds policeman is not in the picture (long ago that was the conservatives battle cry with the military, now it is confrontation, confrontation, confrontation) That is not national defense. I believe in completive bidding for contracts and making the smart correct choices. I also believe in serving, and think every one should serve especially those who believe in strong national defense. I never made claims that the most dangerous threats to our country were afoot and then said I had something better to do. Face it whether you admit it or not, our military is not spread all around the world for national defense we are out there to safeguard markets and resources. Smedley Butler and Eisenhower had it right, The current crop of spendthrifts do not.

 

Hong Kong, exactly I was wondering what you find wrong with Hong Kong that you lump it in with Cuba? Is it that Hong Kong is a successful bastion of capitalism? Were you shooting for that angle? If so why didn't you point out Ireland? They had low taxes that enticed business to come. Of course they gave the people something they have little military to speak of, they harbor terrorists, and don't like Bush, so they don't fit your mold.

 

You may call my view of Conservatism schizophrenic, but I don't believe it is. I fully believe that the current crop of conservatives are so far away from what conservatism was when I was a kid that they no longer recognize it for anything except what it can do for them, and the answer is always lower taxes, no longer is it smart fiscal policy.

[IRememberDBoon]

I would say we got more government with less taxes.

 

what would you say happened under Clinton??

 

do you make more than 250K a year?

[ikol]

Hong Kong, exactly I was wondering what you find wrong with Hong Kong that you lump it in with Cuba? Is it that Hong Kong is a successful bastion of capitalism? Were you shooting for that angle? If so why didn't you point out Ireland? They had low taxes that enticed business to come. Of course they gave the people something they have little military to speak of, they harbor terrorists, and don't like Bush, so they don't fit your mold.

 

Yeah, it was the whole capitalism thing. You picked Somalia as if they have my ideal form of government. Limited government does not equal no government.

 

You may call my view of Conservatism schizophrenic, but I don't believe it is. I fully believe that the current crop of conservatives are so far away from what conservatism was when I was a kid that they no longer recognize it for anything except what it can do for them, and the answer is always lower taxes, no longer is it smart fiscal policy.

 

Fair enough on that, but there are only two areas of spending where cuts would make a significant difference: defense and social security/medicaid. Try winning an election with that platform.

 

what would you say happened under Clinton??

 

do you make more than 250K a year?

 

I would say that a Democrat President and Republican Congress meant that not much got done, which is a good thing in my book. And no I don't make more than $250K, but if you know of any med schools that pay you to attend, I would love to transfer.

[bjorn_skurj]

Indeed, though I would bet you want more government with more taxes while I want less of both.

In my heart of hearts, I yearn for the Socialist Workers' Paradise, but I will settle for universal health care, legalized marijuana and the abolishment of electronic voting.