I Have a Confession to Make

[PsyOps]

Swayed is a poor word to describe accepting reality. It implies one could believe in unicorns if only the proper swaying could be done. I felt an enormous sense of opportunity in 2001 for a conservative potus with the house and Senate and favorable court and majority of state houses to finally do the policies of the right and none, NONE of it happened.

Med d, no child, all pre 9/11, all the sort of thing the right railed against for decades. Then tsa, dhs and pat act, profoundly anti right policies. Well, certainly, we could win wars! Nope.

Then, a gop president bails out the uaw. This is beyond twilight zone. What does the gop stand for?
9/11 commission white washes the thing worse than the Warren one. Then...tarp. even with a pliant congress saying no, it still happens.

On a personal basis, sure, steady, reserved, reasoned choices and behaviors. But, clearly, any ideas of conservative gummint are, clearly, fanatasy. And would they even work or only make things worse, like calmly seeing to the deck chairs as the ship of state founders?

You and I argued about this and you said it has to be slow and steady, like lifestyle changes. I said it had to stop then and there as there is no such thing as slow and steady for massive problems.

I think I was right.

To give bush credit, which is to say he was merely a puppet being lead to each new enormous gummint policy rather than willfully an unprincipled moron, let's just say the powers that be, in effect, made him do what he did. Fair enough but it only reinforces the obvious: our nation was, and is, controlled and run by our betters and they don't care if we give them bush or Obama or Hillary or trump. They call and have the tunes to their liking, period.

I’m trying to get clear whether you believe conservatism doesn’t work, or it can’t be achieved? We have plenty of evidence that conservatism has resulted in very positive economic results. But, for some reason, every time we move in that direction, something moves us the other way. We have evidence all over the world that liberalism is a failed system.

So, do you believe conservatism is a failed system or that it just can’t be achieved in this country; therefore you have given up on the idea?

I still believe, in your core, you are a conservative. I know you believe in smaller and limited government. I know you believe in personal responsibility and not relying on government to fix all of our problems. I know you’re against our current system of welfare and healthcare. I know you’re against gun control and banning guns. I know you’re against ‘too big to fail’. I know you believe we have a constitution that should be front-and-center of how our government governs. I know you believe our liberties are being threatened by an ever-growing, intrusive government and it’s unacceptable.

So, so the next obvious question is (and this is purely hypothetical)… If Clinton gets elected and democrats take control of congress (house and senate), would that be a good thing? If they decided to completely repeal the constitution and run our country more as Russian-style communism, would you still keep that towel in the middle of the ring? Or would you pick it up, take up arms and say “that’s enough, we need to take our country back”? Do you just give up because you’re not winning right now? If that’s the case, why is there still a Cleveland Browns team?

 

[PsyOps]

http://therightscoop.com/powerful-c...h-richard-mourdock-and-his-views-on-abortion/

It's still beyond my grasp to claim to understand what it's like to be raped and get pregnant from it; and the impossible decision the mother has to make regarding that child. Giving birth or aborting still will be accompanied with indescribable pain. Never, EVER do I want to insert myself into that situation and tell the mother what I think she should do. Do I prefer she say yes to life? Of course. But it can't be my decision, and it certainly shouldn't be the government's decision.

 

[SamSpade]

… If Clinton gets elected and democrats take control of congress (house and senate), would that be a good thing? If they decided to completely repeal the constitution and run our country more as Russian-style communism, would you still keep that towel in the middle of the ring?

Back in the day when it was obvious that Obama would win, Larry espoused the idea that THAT was a good thing, because there would be backlash and the Congress would revert to the Republicans - and after all, strong control of Congress is preferable to limited control of the White House (since it is rare for any party to hold it for more than eight years).

Obviously I don't speak for Larry nor do I think that forecast was particularly compelling since it's almost always true that the party in the White House takes a bath at the mid-terms (Bush avoided it the first time, but lost Congress completely the second).

But I don't agree that's a particularly rosy way of seeing things - historically, electing or allowing odious leaders has not led to greater revolt from the people but generally more oppressive rule until - not revolution - but collapse. I'm reminded of Robert Grave's telling of I, Claudius where it was Emperor Claudius's idea that to restore the Republic, all that was necessary was to allow Nero and his awful mother to assume power, and the people would overthrow them. What resulted of course was centuries of brutality followed by total collapse. This is not a unique experience but certainly a well-documented one.

I don't think electing Hillary would be good for anyone - I think it's entirely possible she will make changes for the worse that can't be undone, whereas the worst Trump can do could probably be undone by a subsequent President (barring all out war).

 

[PsyOps]

Back in the day when it was obvious that Obama would win, Larry espoused the idea that THAT was a good thing, because there would be backlash and the Congress would revert to the Republicans - and after all, strong control of Congress is preferable to limited control of the White House (since it is rare for any party to hold it for more than eight years).

I meant good thing as in - if dems had complete control, would it be better for the country.

It seems Larry is claiming to be a liberal to a point that he would accept anything Clinton and the democrats try to change in our constitutional system; even dismantle it in favor of all-out socialism. I am finding this impossible to believe. I just don't know how someone does such a flip in their philosophical thinking simply because he believes he can't win anymore. I can see how people would have a philosophical epiphany and do a 180; but not what Larry is saying changed him.

 

[SamSpade]

Else, they wouldn't be so hell-bent on remaking it into, say, Saudi Arabia.

And this is - well - hard to even follow.

The left is CONSTANTLY reminding us of how much better Europe is over us - I don't think I miss a day without hearing it.
Usually the answer is to give them a buttload more money so they can imitate what they see over there.
They've even gone so far as to suggest we be more like *Cuba* - or God help us, Venezuela (before the current mess).

I am beyond certain I've never heard a conservative ever suggest we should be like *anyone* else, much less Saudi Arabia or anyplace in the Middle East.

That's because we DO like America the way it is - we do think it is the greatest nation the Earth has ever produced.
When has someone on the right said "we were never great" or "we're not the greatest nation on earth"?
With its flaws, we love this country - and we're not crazy about anyone changing it into something ELSE.

 

[Larry Gude]

I meant good thing as in - if dems had complete control, would it be better for the country.

It seems Larry is claiming to be a liberal to a point that he would accept anything Clinton and the democrats try to change in our constitutional system; even dismantle it in favor of all-out socialism. I am finding this impossible to believe. I just don't know how someone does such a flip in their philosophical thinking simply because he believes he can't win anymore. I can see how people would have a philosophical epiphany and do a 180; but not what Larry is saying changed him.

Hillary Clinton is no liberal. She is the same big gummint, new world order, too big to fail neo con as bush and obama. The real left calls it neoliberalism.

 

[PsyOps]

Hillary Clinton is no liberal. She is the same big gummint, new world order, too big to fail neo con as bush and obama. The real left calls it neoliberalism.

I'm not going to get into semantics; I know what a liberal is. She is a confessed progressive; which is just a nifty way of saying she is a socialist.

 

[Larry Gude]

I'm not going to get into semantics; I know what a liberal is. She is a confessed progressive; which is just a nifty way of saying she is a socialist.

And in this context, Bush = Obama = Clinton II. Semantics matter because we need some sort of agreement what conservatism is because it is NOT George W. Bush in any way, shape or form.

So, what is conservatism? I come from what I think of as the George Will school which is pro life but not anti abortion because a conservative does not accept state intrusion on the matter. Conservatism is humble foreign policy. Many 'conservatives are neo cons, world cop, peace at the end of a gun types. Interventionists. A conservative would never support using the US constitution to ban gay marriage, not even to consider it. Most conservative, or people who think of themselves as such, are for it. A real conservative would not take talk of walls and mass deportations as from a serious mind.

So, to answer the question, there are no conservatives to speak of in the first place. It's all become a mashing of small and big gummint opinions. A conservative would be for small(er) government but recognizes the reality of bureaucracies like the IRS and that our gummint is far too complex for the amateur anymore. That terms limits, however romantic, would lead to an endless parade or rubes being fleeced by the professional establishment class.

I don't think 'conservative' is identifiable anymore and I blame Dubbya for killing it off. It got ALL the blame for what he did, decidedly NOT conservative policies. So, there is no conservatism anymore and I don;t think it is up to the task if there was.

 

[Larry Gude]

Back in the day when it was obvious that Obama would win, Larry espoused the idea that THAT was a good thing, .

That, and Dubbya, is why I gave up the faith. I even held out for a bit when Boehner was forced out. Yet, he was replaced with as non conservative establishment type as he was.

So, yeah, my theory is dead and gone. I was wrong on that hope.

 

[Larry Gude]

I meant good thing as in - if dems had complete control, would it be better for the country.

It seems Larry is claiming to be a liberal to a point that he would accept anything Clinton and the democrats try to change in our constitutional system; even dismantle it in favor of all-out socialism. I am finding this impossible to believe. I just don't know how someone does such a flip in their philosophical thinking simply because he believes he can't win anymore. I can see how people would have a philosophical epiphany and do a 180; but not what Larry is saying changed him.

I think I'm more a Marxist now. Our nation is obviously socialist, so, revolution or work with what is? I think the latter. Of course, I don't expect anyone around here to know that Marx's goals and intentions actually were, very much about the individual, and not the reflexive thought of him as the Lenin/Stalin model. The evils of what we think of as capitalism are now clear. Bush and Obama have given us oligarchy. We will sell anything and everything to anyone and everyone for a buck and then, as the nation becomes Mexican and Muslim, wave our little flags and head off to some other #### hole to 'spread' democracy.

 

[PsyOps]

And in this context, Bush = Obama = Clinton II. Semantics matter because we need some sort of agreement what conservatism is because it is NOT George W. Bush in any way, shape or form.

So, what is conservatism? I come from what I think of as the George Will school which is pro life but not anti abortion because a conservative does not accept state intrusion on the matter. Conservatism is humble foreign policy. Many 'conservatives are neo cons, world cop, peace at the end of a gun types. Interventionists. A conservative would never support using the US constitution to ban gay marriage, not even to consider it. Most conservative, or people who think of themselves as such, are for it. A real conservative would not take talk of walls and mass deportations as from a serious mind.

So, to answer the question, there are no conservatives to speak of in the first place. It's all become a mashing of small and big gummint opinions. A conservative would be for small(er) government but recognizes the reality of bureaucracies like the IRS and that our gummint is far too complex for the amateur anymore. That terms limits, however romantic, would lead to an endless parade or rubes being fleeced by the professional establishment class.

I don't think 'conservative' is identifiable anymore and I blame Dubbya for killing it off. It got ALL the blame for what he did, decidedly NOT conservative policies. So, there is no conservatism anymore and I don;t think it is up to the task if there was.

Then, by your standard, there never have been any conservatives. I never took you for an absolutist. You don’t ever get everything in a person. If I don’t fill all the checkmarks that define a conservative, doesn’t mean I’m not. And no animal is extinct until the last one is gone. I am a conservative until the day I die, and as long as I am alive, conservatism lives. And certainly there are millions just like me.

Accepting that liberalism has destroyed conservatism (tossing in the towel) means you are willing to accept that your rights are given to you from government rather than being born with them; because that’s what liberalism requires in order to exist. Are you sure you’re there? Not worth fighting for? Have you turned in your guns? Because you don’t need them anymore.

Which brings us to what we’ve discussed over and over… We can never get everything we want. You want that with your “turn around 180 degrees”. You’re smart enough to know that just isn’t going to happen. I will take some conservatism over no conservatism. At least that potentially slows the cancer growth down. And I like to think of it in those terms. Cancer is never cured immediately. It’s a process, and often a painful one.

 

[SamSpade]

Then, by your standard, there never have been any conservatives.

No ####. Even Barry Goldwater wouldn't pass his scrutiny, and personally I consider him the gold standard for conservatism.

 

[PsyOps]

I think I'm more a Marxist now. Our nation is obviously socialist, so, revolution or work with what is? I think the latter. Of course, I don't expect anyone around here to know that Marx's goals and intentions actually were, very much about the individual, and not the reflexive thought of him as the Lenin/Stalin model.

The problem is people like Clinton are not Marxists. They are far closer to Stalin; in that they feel government must rule everything. And they feel it must be done with intimidation and chaos; Alinski-style chaos. Communism doesn't survive when the people have born rights. Our constitution guarantees protection of those rights. It's pretty frightening to know you'd throw that all away. You're willing to hand over your rights to the government; and for what reason other than you've just given in to the cancer. That's a hell of a thing to pass on to our kids.

And giving this a second thought... why do I feel like you're jerking our chains?

 

[Larry Gude]

Do you know anything about Alinsky?

 

[SamSpade]

And giving this a second thought... why do I feel like you're jerking our chains?

To be honest - I *always* feel that. When Larry says most people disagree with him, I have to think it's because he likes controversy more than establishing a position he's willing to defend.
He has a keen intellect, but he likes to argue more than anything else.

 

[PsyOps]

Do you know anything about Alinsky?

Anything? Yes.

 

[PsyOps]

To be honest - I *always* feel that. When Larry says most people disagree with him, I have to think it's because he likes controversy more than establishing a position he's willing to defend.
He has a keen intellect, but he likes to argue more than anything else.

I was beginning to think he wasn't comfortable with me agreeing with him about Bush, so he had to shift to something more radical that he knew I'd disagree with.

Yes, I think he's stalking me.

 

[Larry Gude]

To be honest - I *always* feel that. When Larry says most people disagree with him, I have to think it's because he likes controversy more than establishing a position he's willing to defend.
He has a keen intellect, but he likes to argue more than anything else.

There are 1,000s of posts to the contrary. But, hey, thinks for the heads up. Now I know where you're coming from.

 

[Larry Gude]

I was beginning to think he wasn't comfortable with me agreeing with him about Bush, so he had to shift to something more radical that he knew I'd disagree with.

Yes, I think he's stalking me.

I applaud you, and others, on coming to terms with dubbya. We're not arguing that. I'm now giving you credit for being correct abiut trump from the get go. I looked it up: that's not arguing.

 

[vraiblonde]

There are 1,000s of posts to the contrary.

Contrary to what, that you have a keen intellect or you like to argue?