America and our Future

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Stunt
So what you are saying is that the Bush doctrine is conservative domestically and social internationally...
who should pay for this democracy conversion?...how often should you guys do this, and do you continue until there are no dictatorships?

Because currently, you cannot afford this war, it's being paid for by the unborn, why not make the next generation of americans pay for an iran war, and the next after that pay for a NK war?...What if you spend so much money now that the economy is thrown into recession where the next generations cannot afford it due to lack of jobs?

This is the same idea CAD brings up when discussing minimum wage or welfare amounts...where do you stop?...you need to set limits as converting the democracies of the world using force is impossible, and sure as hell is not a conservative mindset at the very least.

My generation paid for WWII, Korea, and Vietnam - proudly!

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Stunt
Ok, i think we are on the same page in terms of spreading democracy. I think even steeplerot can agree that democracy on the whole is a good thing. Now, i don't understand CONSERVATIVES arguing for this...this is not a conservative value. You are arguing a liberal concept.
Liberals are the ones who want to play a role outside the country. They are able to do this because they tax the domestic population to afford it.

You cannot cut taxes and afford this democracy by force.
I am a conservative and these ideals are foreign to me.
All conservatives pride themselves in the notion of the free market where people have choice and freedom to manipulate what they want. ie. buying domestic products or environmentally friendly goods. This is the way things should be. Forcing democracy makes you no better than enforcing regulations domestically. Allow these countries to progress to the way we are, just as we did, it is a natural progression...

Interesting mindset to say the least.

Stunt, your approximations of what conservative thinking is and isn't is... very peculiar. Must be because you're Canadian 😉

Are you going to tell me my poor assumptoins or just say im wrong and it's because im canadian 😛

That is certainly a valid consideration! You brought it up!

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Stunt
So what you are saying is that the Bush doctrine is conservative domestically and social internationally...
who should pay for this democracy conversion?...how often should you guys do this, and do you continue until there are no dictatorships?

Because currently, you cannot afford this war, it's being paid for by the unborn, why not make the next generation of americans pay for an iran war, and the next after that pay for a NK war?...What if you spend so much money now that the economy is thrown into recession where the next generations cannot afford it due to lack of jobs?

This is the same idea CAD brings up when discussing minimum wage or welfare amounts...where do you stop?...you need to set limits as converting the democracies of the world using force is impossible, and sure as hell is not a conservative mindset at the very least.

Well the unborn aren't really paying for it. Like so many things in the US it's payed for by borrowing against our assets -- assets that were put in place by those here today and those that came before. The unborn will inherit those assets eventiually, and hopefully build on them in the future as well, and then pass them on to their children. That's how wealth and inheritence pretty much works.

Also, the deal in the ME is meant to have a domino effect. It's expected to steamroll, to spread. There's no necessity to go into every single country to usurp dictators and force democracy on each and every one. That would be stupid to attempt, and impossible as well.

Are you kidding me?...domino effect?...show me a region of the world and there are plenty where the US converted a country's governmental system and others followed wholeheartedly...
I thought conservatives are supposed to be realistic...sounds like a very idealistic proposition.

Western Europe, the former USSR, a ton of Asia? The ME is pretty much the last hold out. Why stop now?

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Stunt
Are you kidding me?...domino effect?...show me a region of the world and there are plenty where the US converted a country's governmental system and others followed wholeheartedly...
I thought conservatives are supposed to be realistic...sounds like a very idealistic proposition.

Show me where anything on the grand scale such as what we are doing in the ME, with the explicit intent to spread democracy, has ever been attempted by the US.

1967 Too long ago for you TLC?

That was working out well, indeed until John Kerry and the liberals got involved with Jane Fonda in the lead. Nothing like giving away the lives of 4.5 million Cambodians!

by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967: p. 2)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here.


And we all know how that imperialist mess turned out.

That was working out well, indeed until John Kerry and the liberals got involved with Jane Fonda in the lead. Nothing like giving away the lives of 4.5 million Cambodians!

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Did you miss the part of my statement about "explicit intent?"

There's a difference between just intervening in governments on a national scale and doing it purposefully on a regional scale as is being done in the ME right now.

The only thing relatively representative to what we are doing now was the Cold War. How much money did that animal cost the US in all. How how long did it take? And how effective was it really?

The Cold War was a case where we implemented change through diplomacy, economic pressures, and making deals with the devil in the process. This time around we are minimizing the deals with the devils. imo, that's a good thing.

So this is a whole new concept then?
Never been tested...hrmmm, kinda naive to assume not only a successful democracy, but a domino effect as well, don't you think?
I'm interested to see how this plays out...but this untried, unproven method required a heck of a lot of money. Even if successful, it will still be considered a horrific waste of money.
Do you know how much more that money is worth domestically...what a shame.

I don't know if it's a new concept. The attempt at its implementation is new.

The other alternatives have been tried in the past and didn't work. What we've seen now is a failure of those other attempts over decades. When a gameplan doesn't work, it's time to change the plan. Since the others had been tried and failed, this was the only possibility left, unfortunately.

I've already addressed the money issue previously. In comparison to permitting terrorism to fester and not meet it head on and aggressively, like we have for decades, it has cost us far, far more. So this money spent is a bargain in comparison. Sure it could have been better spent domestically, if we wanted to ignore the problem once again. Then we'd just have to spend even more in the future. It's like the old Fram Oil Filter commercial "You can pay me now (shows oil filter) or you can pay me later (shows broken engine)."

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Stunt
political definitions

Centrist ? Just what it sounds like. Someone who doesn?t have any particularly strong ideological leanings in any direction.

Conservative ? Specifically a "fusionist" conservative of the National Review - Heritage Foundation mold. Someone who believes in traditional morality and capitalism, and the need for a limited government to allow both to flourish.

Left-libertarian ? The quiz uses a mild definition of a left-libertarian, an anti-statist who is somewhat fearful of corporate and religious influence on public life.

Liberal ? Supports economic regulation to promote social justice and takes a progressive stance toward moral or cultural issues.

Libertarian ? A libertarian opposes most or all government activites. Does not favor much or any government support for either moral or economic systems.

Neoconservative ? A "neocon" is more inclined than other conservatives toward vigorous government in the service of the goals of traditional morality and pro-business policies. Tends to favor a very strong foreign policy of America as well.

Paleoconservative ? "Paleocons" want less US involvement in foeign affairs than other conservatives and oppose mass immigration. They are also more favorably disposed toward the South and the idea of secession, or at least decentralization, than neoconservatives.

Paleo-libertarian ? Similar to other libertarians except for oppostion to mass immigration, and shares the paleocon appreciation of the South.

Radical ? Critical of bouregois morality and strongly opposed to capitalism and willing to use state power to achieve desired ends.

Third-way ? More supportive of foreign intervention than liberals and less supportive of economic regulation, coupled with more-or-less progressive social views. "Third-way" is to liberal what neoconservative is to conservative.

Therefore, conservatives believe in LESS gov't to accomplish moral and capitalistic opportunities. I can then draw the conclusion that this means less military (an arm of the gov't) and foreign involvement for converting democracy is a moral standpoint.

So if you are for this force, you are not conservative, but neoconservative...please specify this...don't try to hide in another mindset, you give us true fiscal conservatives a bad name.

I just discovered I am a Paleocon! Support foreign war for the cause and would stop foreign aid on a dime!

 

[Steeplerot]

uh huh and your swiftvet buddies told you jk lost nam for us?
One guy (you call a coward) and a little skinny fonda lost your great neocon war in southeast asia?

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
uh huh and your swiftvet buddies told you jk lost nam for us?
One guy (you call a coward) and a little skinny fonda lost your great neocon war in southeast asia?

No, two rabble-rousers and a whole bunch of rabble gave up the win. My swiftboat buddies didn't tell me shit; I was there to see that we controlled South Vietnam until Fonda and company started shaking the politicians back in the states. Even Ho Chi Minh admitted that if we had sustained bombing of Haiphong Harbor for another two weeks, they would have waved the white flag. I was celebrating the bombing of Haiphong in Pleiku under fire when I first heard about the liberal louse demonstrating back here in the world and the decision to halt the bombing.

Oh, if Kerry wasn't an opportunistic coward, he had to have been the dumbest grunt in the war. Only four months of actual service and three Purple Hearts! One self inflected! You know you love to fight with something like that. The best thing he did was to leave Nam before he got fragged.

 

[Steeplerot]

You give him too much credit he couldn't even win a election, right? 😉

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Endless dwelling?...i'm merely defining what you claim to be. I want you to compare yourself (a claimed conservative) to a neocon...tell me the difference...is that so hard to do?!

I will agree there are many types of conservatives...and you are a neocon...one type of conservative, who's mindset is precisely what Bush proposes. The true conservatives are the ones that think your ideas are crazy, because neocons are not true conservatives. Tell me how you are conserving resources by invading other countries for 'moral' reasons...sounds like a form of foreign aid to me...quite liberal with limited resources. You are false to equate conservative with republican, as much as you would like to have this (or not, considering you are a neocon), it is not the case. You are the one that has the misperception of what a conservative/conservationist/reservist is...you are thwarting the raw ideals of this mainstream ideal to fit your extemist neoconservative view.

On the whole the majority of americans are raw conservatives...the only reason kerry came close to winning, and don't argue that he didnt is because conservatives were upset that their values are not being upheld by the current administration. Expensive aggressive foreign policy, massive domestic spending is NOT conservative. American conservatives are exactly how i have defined them above. If you ask the true advocates of conservatism (upper class, pro-business) you will undoubtedly get the response that the iraq war was a poor investment and a horrible use of funds. Ask them whether they would like a a) tax break b) smaller deficit c) iraqi freedom...c) would be at the absolute bottom of their list, i bet education would beat it. Maybe even healthcare as they wouldnt have to offer employees health care benifit plans.

You need to understand what conservatism is...not i.
I'm surprised actually as you are the one that started the conservative thread.
Looks like you need to find out what being a conservative really is, maybe you are using it a an excuse to push your extremist neocon views...who knows. Again, answer my question before we continue this conversation. "Compare yourself (a claimed conservative) to a neocon"

Why the hell are you obsessed with labelling me and all other conservatives? Here's what you put for neocon:

"Neoconservative ? A "neocon" is more inclined than other conservatives toward vigorous government in the service of the goals of traditional morality and pro-business policies. Tends to favor a very strong foreign policy of America as well."

Well I do not support vigorous government in the service of traditional morality and pro-business policies. I do tend to favor a very strong foreign policy. Does that make me a neocon? I don't know... and I don't care! Why do you?

There are no true conservatives. Get that through your head. There is no one "right" conservative. No one "true" conservative. There are no "pure" conservatives. I probably know more about what kinds of conservatives there are and what they believe more than you ever will. The point of my conservative thread and the point I'm trying to relate to you now is that the term "conservative" is a wide open, general description that encompasses ALL conservative types. Can you understand that they are all conservative?

Once again I ask you to explain how your so-called true conservatism (even though there's no such thing) as supposedly represented by the National Review and Heritage Foundation, actually SUPPORTS the Bush Doctrine... even though you say true conservatives CAN'T support it. You're not making any sense.


It sounds like you get your info from non-conservative sources. Actually it sounds like you are purely basing your opinions on "what you think." Well you do not determine what conservatism is. I'm here to suggest that you educate yourself on conservatism, the groups, the people, the ideas... do some research, see what they are saying, and investigate for yourself. Learn their arguments and make the connections. Instead of declaring that me and tens upon tens of millions of people aren't really conservatives, YOU have to figure out why me and many other types of conservatives think that we are conservative and support Bush (over other people) for one reason or another. Like I said, there's a 10,001 position papers out there describing how and why we conservatives support Bush's foreign policy. Do it!

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

You give him too much credit he couldn't even win a election, right? 😉

Mostly because he had a bad plan from the time he was twenty!

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: theblackbox
Topic Title: America and our Future
Topic Summary: We should Reap what we've been Sewing

The road to Democracy was never meant to be through Imperialism.

It didn't work for England and it shirley won't work for the U.S.

If it was, our Forefathers would've written it into the Constitution.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: theblackbox
Topic Title: America and our Future
Topic Summary: We should Reap what we've been Sewing

The road to Democracy was never meant to be through Imperialism.

It didn't work for England and it shirley won't work for the U.S.

If it was, our Forefathers would've written it into the Constitution.

Our Constitution doesn't define democracy. It spells out the rights inherent to the citizens of this country. Besides, nowhere does it say that imperialism doesn't mesh with democracy.

Truthfully, it doesn't matter because our foray into Iraq shirley isn't imperialism anyway. 🙂

 

[Stunt]

TLC: I'm not going to get into whether this stategy will work or not, i'm interested to see if it does work, it is my gut feeling that it will create a corrupt pro-american regime which has had a tendancy to fall in the past. Refer to Cuba/Iran etc. But nonetheless i am supportive of democracy in the middle east (even though the claimed democracies like SA are not really, yet the Bush admin has no problem with them). When it comes down to costs. I don't think of it as an oil filter vs. engine replacement. Any financial analyst will tell you that today's dollars are worth far more than tomorrows. Being proactive with war and military MUST give results at a bargain of a price. This war has not, 4% of gdp is not a good use of funds. I would equate the cost to buying a car in highschool or university knowing that you will need a car after graduation. Eventually sure, you will need a car but to pay insurance, maintenance, gas, etc is not practical and will drastically increase the costs in times where imcomes are low (see deficit). Now if you had let it sit, perhaps you might have a situation where the iraqi's rebel against their leader...Saddam is getting old, this would not be surprising. Also down the road lets say that Saddam did do something (ref. Kuwait), you would at least have the rest of the world backing you up, militarily and financially. All in all you cannot prove that this was a good use of funds, on the other hand i can prove it was a poor use. You cannot counter this areguement without many grave assumptions, so i guess we can leave it at that. PS. which countries would you like to be converted in the near future...this seems to be a mindset you feel good about. Iran has 70mil ppl, they could be a democracy for a 'bargain' of $1.2 trillion...where to draw the line...socialist views have no limit.

cwjerome: You fail to understand that conservatives conserve, in every respect. This includes foreign involvement, spending and socially. I am not a true conservative. Neither are you. I am not repressive socially, so i am not a conservative in every respect. But i am a conservative in the other two considerations. Just as i have taken the traditional conservative roots and altered them to fit my beliefs, so have you. I have borrowed the idea of a progressive social stance from the liberal set of beliefs. You have taken the aggressive foreign policy stance from the liberal set of beliefs. I have no idea why you are ashamed of this. You have just merged two mainsteam mindsets...there's nothing wrong with that. Unfortunately the problem i see with your stance is that aggressive foreign policy costs money. Money is a scarce and limited resource, this social mindset internationally hurts your conservative economic policy at home. Either in the form of larger debt and deficit, or ultimately higher taxes (even if not labelled that). It's not my fault that your views condradict each other, there must be enough of you to even have your own name: "neocon". It is this reason alone that conservatives of my kind were shunned away from the republican party. I can deal with a party with questionable social stance (like they've done anything on this front in the last 4 years anyways, still abortion, still gay marriage option on state level, etc), what i cannot deal with is the insane social spending and the aggressive foreign policy. Unfortunately Kerry was not talking fiscal responsibility this past election, he talked of more spending. So what is a conservative to do?...Bush is not conservative, feel free to prove this. In politics it all comes down to voting for the person who comprimises your beliefs the least. As a conservative, Bush goes too far in every respect. He is not conservative in my eyes. Kerry surely isn't either. It is a sad state of affairs in the US as this new "American Conservatism" is taking over the grassroots conservative ideology. You talk about conservatives banding together and holding together, you need to give them a reason to. If the dems run a fiscal candidate...look out. Once independents and conservatives are presented with a true fiscal conservative, you can say goodbye to the neocons. Anyways, i don't need to do any reading on conservatism...you need to learn what you are and why one of the most liberal senators in the US was able to come within a 1% or so margin in the land where almost everyone is conservative.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: theblackbox
blah blah blah . . .snip snip snip . . .

Instead, we sit behind our computer monitors, typing about how bad things are and how disenfranchised we are as we gobble down twinkies and consume mountain dew. The closest the majority of people that post here to violence is when they play WoW or Half Life 2.

We hear about class struggle and racial issues. The US and it's citizens are blind to reality. What if the US was like parts of Africa where people get pulled from their cars and shot in the streets daily just because of their color.

Maybe if that happened here, we'd appreciate what we have more. Maybe we need to wake up. Maybe we need to suffer like the rest of the world.

Personally, I love the life and freedom i have here, i love knowing that i can walk down the street, go into a building, go into a busy area without worrying about if the ryder truck that just pulled up is full of explosives, or if someone in my family may die.

regardless of who is in office, what party is in charge, america stands for more. it's one of the few places where people from different religions don't kill each other over land or beliefs on a daily basis.
and it doesn't matter if god(s) on our side or not.

but maybe we should suffer, and then we might be better for it.

Sounds like a good idea. I nominate you to suffer for us all. Start suffering. Man, somebody should turn you over to the FBI or Homeland Security. Your name isn't by chance Osama is it? That kinda stuff doesn't happen here because WE DON'T LET IT! And we punish the people severly who perpetrate these acts. . .You are so disillusioned. Osamas little tricks have worked very nicely on your fragile psyche. People in America DO get dragged out of their cars and beat or killed because of their color! Remember a guy named Rodney King? Remember that white truck driver in the LA riots? And these are just the ones we hear about. America at its finest moments! You aren't worried about that Ryder truck being filled with explosives? Well maybe you should be! Remember the Oklahoma city building? America is not the paradise the rest of the huddled impoverished masses in the world make it out to be. To be rich in America epitomizes the good life. But then again to be rich living anywhere, you probably have a pretty good life. To be poor in America you are in a lot of ways worse off than you would be living someplace else. But hey, its a free country so you are welcome to suffer if you want. Nobody will stop you. Otherwise, cram another twinkie in your pie hole and shut it. If you feel so lucky and privileged that you live here and have a good life you should thank GOD for that gift and not take it for granted. If you feel so guilty about it, do something to help. Whenever you get around to it, you know .. .when you're done playing WoW.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Stunt,
4% of GDP is pretty cheap for a war on this scale. Go check how much of our GDP WW2 ate up. iirc (I don't have time to research it right now) it was somewhere around 10 times as much. For what it's accomplishing (at least what I think it's accomplishing) it's a relative bargain. and in the long run the benefits we reap should pay the US back for this expensditure.

 

[Stunt]

a) this was not a world war, b) this is one of many dictatorship around the world, investing in one is futile, c) over the long run i already told you what could have happened - iraqis freeing themselves like the rest of the free world did. Or collectively as a multilateral force when needed (WMD?...pfff). Again, you have no arguements to prove that this was a worth while investment. You keep calling it a bargain with no reasoning.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

You give him too much credit he couldn't even win a election, right? 😉

Mostly because he had a bad plan from the time he was twenty!

Well, if he did take part in stopping an unjust war then more power to him.
Shame America has lost sight of what a true hero is.
(or at least the nixon hanger's on who want to crucify jk like that.)
BTW big nixon fan much? that drivel you posted sounds just like recoreded transcripts from his slimey mouth himself back then.
Do you really buy nixons little smear of him?
You do know those sbvft are proven total liars they have had a hard on against jk since they were nixons (now bush's shill)
Oh well nixon is a small fry compared to bushco. I guess it doesent matter much when you celebrate and parrot liars and con men.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Stunt
a) this was not a world war, b) this is one of many dictatorship around the world, investing in one is futile, c) over the long run i already told you what could have happened - iraqis freeing themselves like the rest of the free world did. Or collectively as a multilateral force when needed (WMD?...pfff). Again, you have no arguements to prove that this was a worth while investment. You keep calling it a bargain with no reasoning.

a0 This is a war for the world. At least the world we know.

b) For the umpteenth time, being in Iraq is about much more than just Iraq. Are you simply refusing to acknowledge that?

As far as why it's a bargain, I've given good reasons. Just because you refuse to acknowledge them as viable reasons does not reduce their validity. As I've already stated, another 9/11, which could easily have happened by not directly confronting the terrorism problem, would be far more costly that what is being spent in Iraq right now.

 

[Stunt]

Are you kidding me...this is NOT a world war. It was the world's one and only superpower mowing down a weakened piece of crap country. They were heavily damaged by desert storm, have only 25mill ppl, of which 50% hates the oppressive group. Hardly something to consider a world war. From a resource, cost, casualty, involvement, principles standpoint, this was nowhere near a world war, by putting it in the same league, you are severly undermining the other two world wars.

More than iraq?...no...you assuming that an untested, untried forcful democracy change will cause a potential 'domino effect'.

Another 9/11?!...iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, the saudi's, iranians, afganis, syrians had hundreds of times more involvement than the iraqis. A very weak arguement.

 

[OffTopic1]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I agree in the spead of democracy yllus, but the price of iraq was far too great. There are literally dozens if not a hundred dictatorships around the world, and to spend 400billion or whatever the number is now on 25million measly people that MIGHT not attack the US is just nutty.
There needs to be some sanity in these crusades.
I think the US currently lacks this. The alternative, i have no idea...but 400billion goes a long way in ACTUALLY fighting terror, and not investing in regime changes, which POTENTIALLY COULD stop terrorism.

400 billions would buy a lot of fuel to fly the president & vice president to every country on this planet. It would only take 3-4 months out of a year for the pres/vice pres to meet all the leaders in their own country, and leave 2/3 of the year at home working. Doing it this way would buy the US a lot more friends than bombs & depleated UD.

 

[cwjerome]

Stunt you are pretty much creating your concepts instead of listening to what 95% of what other conservatives say. That's fine... there's nothing else I can say about that. We just disagree.

You can claim there's only one type of conservative, and all the others are simply conservative-wannabes or something, but like I said you're arguing a nonsensical point. Just out of curiousity, do you believe that there is only one true type of liberal also?

The most amazing thing is your analysis of my beliefs... which just proves in my mind you really have no idea what you're talking about. You say I need to learn what I am, which is a strange thing to say to a well-read person whose college major is political science and can explain his beliefs consistantly and deductively starting with the most basic foundations of metaphysics, epistomology, and ethics. I have made it a point in my life to know EXACTLY what I think and WHY I think it. You can come along and label the sum of my politics but you say doesn't define me.

I could go on and on about how conservatives like me believe that a most important and legitimate role of the federal government is to protect (conserve) our basic liberties and doing so effectively in the 21st century means being proactive internationally, etc etc.... but it's not my job or desire to present a philosophic manifesto, especially when there's enough material out there to sift through if you weren't so damn lazy to go out and genuinely try and understand why many types of conservatives generally support the Bush Doctrine.

 

[OffTopic1]

Nor are we going to be occupying anything. Take a hard look at Iraq. They are now setting up their own government. They will rule themselves. That is not an occupation. The US may have a long-term presence there, much like we still do in Japan and Germany. Would you consider those countries occupaied though? Sorry, but "occupied" is just a silly use of hyperbolic terminology.

Just like the corrupted ruling body that was elected in Vietnam under the US watch.

Also, the deal in the ME is meant to have a domino effect. It's expected to steamroll, to spread. There's no necessity to go into every single country to usurp dictators and force democracy on each and every one. That would be stupid to attempt, and impossible as well.

The US lost billions & many good men in Vietnam because of the domino affect claimed. Why would it work now if it didn't work then?

 

[Stunt]

I'm not creating concepts...I am defining set ideologies...you cannot dispute my reasoning...conservatives conserve in every respect, this is logical. Since when have conservatives supported government spending in any respect...they don't, that would be liberal with scarce resources. There is one type of conservative...yes...but there are tons of different types of republicans...you need to get that through your head. Republicans currently are not conservative...more conservative than the current democrats...yes. Is this something to be proud of?...hardly. Maybe for you as you are a neocon and support liberal use of scarce resources internationally in the form of military intervention in hopes of democracy. And to answer if there is one type of liberal, yes...yes there is. There are several types of liberal and democrat variations, just as we have been through with conservatives. I know exactly what I am talking about, it's not my fault you dont know what a conservative is! If you have made it a point in your life to know what you believe in, say it right here and now...and we will determine what you are, all the categories are above. I'm not lazy at all...you just don't know basic definitions.

We both have conservative roots, but have both taken on liberal beliefs...i'm not offended by this, why should you?
Are you upset that the republican party doesn't represent conservatives, but rather spendthrift neocons?
You have no case, i suggest you not bother posting until you realize what the word conserve means.

 

[cwjerome]

Stunt: Well as long as you try and paint an extremely complicated picture and analyze and very complex issue with nothing but two-sentence dictionary definitions, then you will continue to be on the outside looking in. I'm not going to get you to stop thinking that you are correct and us millions of thoughtful conservatives who know what they believe and what makes someone conservative are wrong :roll:

Lemme just get a few things straight before I get tired of debating in circles with you. According to you, there is only one type of conservative. All the others who don't fit that narrow exact definition are not conservative. This "true" conservativism as (represented by Heritage and National Review) MUST be opposed to war... even though both Heritage and National Review are supportive of the Bush Doctrine. The crux of your argument is that since conservatives "conserve" things, spending on national defense is unconservative, and in fact it is being liberal with scarce resources.

Excuse me one moment.... BWAHAHAWAHAHAHAH!!! :laugh:

Stunt you would be laughed off the stage in a serious debate on ideology and politics. You are dangerously close to revealing yourself as a leftist hack who pretends to be conservative (who strangely admits he's not really a conservative??!).

The best part is you're trying to make this personal. I have no problem if you call me a neocon, a non-conservative, or Mr. SuperDuper-True Conservative. This isn't about me. I'm debating the IDEA that there is only one exact conservative (which must be the few nihilists in America since you say "Since when have conservatives supported government spending in any respect...they don't.")

I am wondering what some of the liberals at P&N would say to you concerning your belief that there is also only one proper, pure type of liberal.

Bah... this is getting old...