For true conservatives disenchanted with the GOP

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: QED
Yes, obviously the best answer to free-spending Rebublicans is to vote in a free-spending AND tax-raising Obama. I'm really sure we'll see smaller budgets and smaller government under Obama. He can really bring change. And hope. And, mmmm.... this Kook-Aid tastes good...

No shit. ANY "true conservative" the OP describes should be nowhere close to embracing BHO. Now if by "true conservative" he means Andrew Sullivan conservative(which is liberal) then maybe he would have a point and a case but Buckley is spinning in his grave with this sort of nonsense.

I think if you ignore the whole 'I am for Obama' part of the article. I think you find a very well written and great summary of what TRUE conservatism is. Something this country has been lacking lately..................

Do you think the GOP is still the true conservative party?

The GOP was never a "true consevative party" IMO. It's been the more Conservative party.

I'm not suggesting people should vote for McCain(because I'm not) but if it's Conservative they strive for, BHO is a stupid choice. The best choice is to vote RP or Barr to have your protest vote counted.

The GOP isn't even the more conservative party anymore.

I don't know how you define conservative, but radically ideological isn't how I define it.

:roll: There is no contest as to which of the two current parties is more Conservative. You can say that the current President isn't Conservative and some in the GOP aren't Conservative but there is NO current democrat who is more conservative and the party as an entity most certainly isn't. Sheesh.. talk about f'n blind...

I guess that depends on how you define conservative, now doesn't it?

Pete Seeger has a quote on this I've always liked. He said, "I like to say I'm more conservative than Goldwater. He just wanted to turn the clock back to when there was no income tax. I want to turn the clock back to when people lived in small villages and took care of each other."
Now if you know who Seeger is, then you know how ironic that comment is.

But if conservatism to you is upholding "traditional Christian values," like laws against gays and abortion, and teaching creationism in schools, then no question, the Republicans are more conservative.
If conservatism to you is maintaining an aggressive and interventionist foreign policy, always fighting wars across the globe with huge defense budgets, then no question, the Republicans are more conservative.
But if conservatism to you is about fiscal responsibility, reigning in government and having it work for the common people instead of handouts to a few elite, balancing the budget, and maintaining liberty and freedom, then no, the Republicans are not more conservative.

To me, however, conservative is exactly what that article described. It is a skepticism. "Won't get fooled again." "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." A stance of being pragmatic rather than ideological. Of dealing with things the way they are rather than the way you want them to be. In which case, the Republicans currently FAIL at being more conservative.

Conservatism to Conservatives is Buckley, Goldwater, etc type of Conservatism(Modern Conservatism). That type of Conservative would never vote for/support BHO.

You really have to admire somebody who can dig up the dead and know what they think. Alternatively, you could just laugh you ass off at somebody with the arrogance to think they can. Personally I would never assume these great dead men would be as rote in their thinking as Caddy.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Conservatism to Conservatives is Buckley, Goldwater, etc type of Conservatism(Modern Conservatism). That type of Conservative would never vote for/support BHO.

I think you forgot to read the article, because a founding member of that type of conservatism just said that he was.

And?

I disagree with this author because a Buckley, Goldwater, etc Conservative would not support BHO. It seems like this author has a problem with McCain and Bush - not that he wants to support BHO(except for his kool-aid like fawning). However, this author is talking as if there are only two options which is not true. If this guy wants a Conservative then he should vote for Barr or RP to protest the GOP for their waywardness. It makes ZERO sense to "reward" the liberal ideology because you got your nose bent out of shape.

Hello? McFly? Anybody home?

Wick Allison

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Conservatism to Conservatives is Buckley, Goldwater, etc type of Conservatism(Modern Conservatism). That type of Conservative would never vote for/support BHO.

I think you forgot to read the article, because a founding member of that type of conservatism just said that he was.

And?

I disagree with this author because a Buckley, Goldwater, etc Conservative would not support BHO. It seems like this author has a problem with McCain and Bush - not that he wants to support BHO(except for his kool-aid like fawning). However, this author is talking as if there are only two options which is not true. If this guy wants a Conservative then he should vote for Barr or RP to protest the GOP for their waywardness. It makes ZERO sense to "reward" the liberal ideology because you got your nose bent out of shape.

Hello? McFly? Anybody home?

Wick Allison

And? (how many times do I have to ask that?)

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
And? (how many times do I have to ask that?)

By your reasoning, if Buckley thought Obama was better right now for the country than McCain, he'd no longer be a conservative, correct?

 

[NeoV]

um....Obama is doing all of this just so he can be a rubber stamper for Pelosi and gang? Umm.....how about no.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Conservatism to Conservatives is Buckley, Goldwater, etc type of Conservatism(Modern Conservatism). That type of Conservative would never vote for/support BHO.

I think you forgot to read the article, because a founding member of that type of conservatism just said that he was.

And?

I disagree with this author because a Buckley, Goldwater, etc Conservative would not support BHO. It seems like this author has a problem with McCain and Bush - not that he wants to support BHO(except for his kool-aid like fawning). However, this author is talking as if there are only two options which is not true. If this guy wants a Conservative then he should vote for Barr or RP to protest the GOP for their waywardness. It makes ZERO sense to "reward" the liberal ideology because you got your nose bent out of shape.

Hello? McFly? Anybody home?

Wick Allison

And? (how many times do I have to ask that?)

And... you clearly have NO understanding whatsoever of what a true Buckley/Goldwater conservative is.

He's not 'rewarding' the liberal ideology because his nose is bent out of shape. Get that through your head. He's punishing the Republicans for not being conservative. Should you choose to actually read the article, I would be happy to discuss with you some of the excellent points and arguments the author made, rather than your obstinate bullshit.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
And? (how many times do I have to ask that?)

By your reasoning, if Buckley thought Obama was better right now for the country than McCain, he'd no longer be a conservative, correct?

He wouldn't think that. He wouldn't be stuck in the 2 choice mindset like this author or others that claim to be Conservative. Supporting Liberalism is not an answer to lack of Conservatism.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
And? (how many times do I have to ask that?)

By your reasoning, if Buckley thought Obama was better right now for the country than McCain, he'd no longer be a conservative, correct?

He wouldn't think that. He wouldn't be stuck in the 2 choice mindset like this author or others that claim to be Conservative. Supporting Liberalism is not an answer to lack of Conservatism.

Jesus H Christ. He's not supporting liberalism.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Conservatism to Conservatives is Buckley, Goldwater, etc type of Conservatism(Modern Conservatism). That type of Conservative would never vote for/support BHO.

I think you forgot to read the article, because a founding member of that type of conservatism just said that he was.

And?

I disagree with this author because a Buckley, Goldwater, etc Conservative would not support BHO. It seems like this author has a problem with McCain and Bush - not that he wants to support BHO(except for his kool-aid like fawning). However, this author is talking as if there are only two options which is not true. If this guy wants a Conservative then he should vote for Barr or RP to protest the GOP for their waywardness. It makes ZERO sense to "reward" the liberal ideology because you got your nose bent out of shape.

Hello? McFly? Anybody home?

Wick Allison

And? (how many times do I have to ask that?)

And... you clearly have NO understanding whatsoever of what a true Buckley/Goldwater conservative is.

He's not 'rewarding' the liberal ideology because his nose is bent out of shape. Get that through your head. He's punishing the Republicans for not being conservative. Should you choose to actually read the article, I would be happy to discuss with you some of the excellent points and arguments the author made, rather than your obstinate bullshit.

Wrong wrong wrong. I am a student of Modern Conservatism and have studied it extensively. Again he is rewarding liberalism by supporting BHO because his nose is out of joint. Yes, he thinks the GOP has gone astray - I happen to agree but just because my nose is out of joint due to the GOP unConservativeness as of late does NOT mean that I'll reward the opposing ideology by supporting their candidate. However, it does not mean that one must stick with the GOP. Why can't you people(and this author) get that through your thick skulls? It's not a binary choice. IF you are a Conservative and feel the GOP has strayed too far from Conservatism then don't vote for them - cast a protest vote that can be counted (Barr/RP) instead of rewarding liberalism by supporting BHO.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
And? (how many times do I have to ask that?)

By your reasoning, if Buckley thought Obama was better right now for the country than McCain, he'd no longer be a conservative, correct?

He wouldn't think that. He wouldn't be stuck in the 2 choice mindset like this author or others that claim to be Conservative. Supporting Liberalism is not an answer to lack of Conservatism.

Jesus H Christ. He's not supporting liberalism.

Wake the hell up - he is to by supporting BHO.

 

[Moonbeam]

In a card game Caddy would argue that an ace is a joker.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: NeoV
um....Obama is doing all of this just so he can be a rubber stamper for Pelosi and gang? Umm.....how about no.

what has Obama ever done to imply that he'd stand up to Pelosi or Reid? he's voted straight down the party line 97% of the time. which is great if you're a democrat, but I don't think this author is.

really, it makes no sense to me. if anyone has the power to back a third party candidate and give him instant credibility, I'd think it'd be the publisher of the national review. so why half ass it and pimp yourself out for candidate with whom you only share 1% of your views with versus finding a promoting a candidate who shares your vision of conservatism?

all this discussion of Barack Obama, King of Peace, seems to be ignoring his overtures regarding invading Pakistan.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: NeoV
um....Obama is doing all of this just so he can be a rubber stamper for Pelosi and gang? Umm.....how about no.

what has Obama ever done to imply that he'd stand up to Pelosi or Reid? he's voted straight down the party line 97% of the time. which is great if you're a democrat, but I don't think this author is.

really, it makes no sense to me. if anyone has the power to back a third party candidate and give him instant credibility, I'd think it'd be the publisher of the national review. so why half ass it and pimp yourself out for candidate with whom you only share 1% of your views with versus finding a promoting a candidate who shares your vision of conservatism?

Probably has to do with the fact he's a realist pragmatist and knows the only alternative to McInsane is Obama.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: NeoV
um....Obama is doing all of this just so he can be a rubber stamper for Pelosi and gang? Umm.....how about no.

what has Obama ever done to imply that he'd stand up to Pelosi or Reid? he's voted straight down the party line 97% of the time. which is great if you're a democrat, but I don't think this author is.

really, it makes no sense to me. if anyone has the power to back a third party candidate and give him instant credibility, I'd think it'd be the publisher of the national review. so why half ass it and pimp yourself out for candidate with whom you only share 1% of your views with versus finding a promoting a candidate who shares your vision of conservatism?

Probably has to do with the fact he's a realist pragmatist and knows the only alternative to McInsane is Obama.

how will real change ever happen if everyone just votes for "good enough" instead of following their passion?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Probably has to do with the fact he's a realist pragmatist and knows the only alternative to McInsane is Obama.

Fox meet hen house.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
And? (how many times do I have to ask that?)

By your reasoning, if Buckley thought Obama was better right now for the country than McCain, he'd no longer be a conservative, correct?

He wouldn't think that. He wouldn't be stuck in the 2 choice mindset like this author or others that claim to be Conservative. Supporting Liberalism is not an answer to lack of Conservatism.

You can't change my hypothetical. This author is Buckley's progeny and he supports Obama, for whatever reason. I'm sure he's pro-life, pro-small government, pro-god/family-values, etc. But right now he thinks Obama is a better choice for the country. You claim his entire worldview as a conservative is negated by this decision. If Wick could possibly support Obama, I'm giving you that it's possible Buckley could too. If that were the case, would the founder of the conservative movement no longer be a conservative because of this one decision?

Similarly, you are arguing that a lefty liberal who was pro-gay marriage, pro choice, pro big governemnt, anti-war, pro-welfare, pro science, pro environment, anti-death penalty, anti-gun, yet somehow felt McCain's experience and militay service were vital to the president's office at this juncture and decided to vote McCain, he'd no longer be a liberal?

Consider what you're saying for a second.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: NeoV
um....Obama is doing all of this just so he can be a rubber stamper for Pelosi and gang? Umm.....how about no.

what has Obama ever done to imply that he'd stand up to Pelosi or Reid? he's voted straight down the party line 97% of the time. which is great if you're a democrat, but I don't think this author is.

really, it makes no sense to me. if anyone has the power to back a third party candidate and give him instant credibility, I'd think it'd be the publisher of the national review. so why half ass it and pimp yourself out for candidate with whom you only share 1% of your views with versus finding a promoting a candidate who shares your vision of conservatism?

Probably has to do with the fact he's a realist pragmatist and knows the only alternative to McInsane is Obama.

how will real change ever happen if everyone just votes for "good enough" instead of following their passion?

You are making all sorts of assumptions you don't recoginze. How will change ever happen. Change is always happening. Change is what can never be stopped. I gotta go now for a bit, but just that blows your point out of the water.

 

[nageov3t]

guess I should have clarified, how can we have change for the *better* if we're always voting for whatever we view as the lesser evil like the author seems to be doing.

 

[Jaskalas]

The point Moonbeam, is that the two government parties are not going to change the course of this nation and work in the interests of the people. They will continue to bend us over and work for themselves.

If Obama was going to bring change, they wouldn?t like him, he wouldn?t have been fast tracked to the Presidency at such a young age. They would fear, hate, and despise him. Being the poster boy of a government party means positive change is the last thing you?re going to bring.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: QED
Yes, obviously the best answer to free-spending Rebublicans is to vote in a free-spending AND tax-raising Obama.

One party wants to spend and spend.

The other party wants to tax and spend.

Which is more fiscally responsible?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: QED
Yes, obviously the best answer to free-spending Rebublicans is to vote in a free-spending AND tax-raising Obama.

One party wants to spend and spend.

The other party wants to tax and spend.

Which is more fiscally responsible?

Neither. Spend within their means like everybody else does in this country. If at the current tax rate we generate 2.5 trillion in tax revenues, the size of the govt should be 2.5 trillion. Why should govt grow faster than the economy?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
And? (how many times do I have to ask that?)

By your reasoning, if Buckley thought Obama was better right now for the country than McCain, he'd no longer be a conservative, correct?

He wouldn't think that. He wouldn't be stuck in the 2 choice mindset like this author or others that claim to be Conservative. Supporting Liberalism is not an answer to lack of Conservatism.

You can't change my hypothetical. This author is Buckley's progeny and he supports Obama, for whatever reason. I'm sure he's pro-life, pro-small government, pro-god/family-values, etc. But right now he thinks Obama is a better choice for the country. You claim his entire worldview as a conservative is negated by this decision. If Wick could possibly support Obama, I'm giving you that it's possible Buckley could too. If that were the case, would the founder of the conservative movement no longer be a conservative because of this one decision?

Similarly, you are arguing that a lefty liberal who was pro-gay marriage, pro choice, pro big governemnt, anti-war, pro-welfare, pro science, pro environment, anti-death penalty, anti-gun, yet somehow felt McCain's experience and militay service were vital to the president's office at this juncture and decided to vote McCain, he'd no longer be a liberal?

Consider what you're saying for a second.

Uhh... hello? Nowhere did I say he was no longer a Conservative so take your strawman BS elsewhere.

Consider actually reading what I post instead of ASSuming.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: QED

Yes, obviously the best answer... to vote in a free-spending AND tax-raising Obama.

Obama says he'll CUT taxes for 95% of American working families. The only people asserting that Obama will raise taxes on anyone but the wealthy are blowing smoke out of their ass.

Please prove your assertion, or please STFU.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: QED

Yes, obviously the best answer... to vote in a free-spending AND tax-raising Obama.

Obama says he'll CUT taxes for 95% of American working families. The only people asserting that Obama will raise taxes on anyone but the wealthy are blowing smoke out of their ass.

Please prove your assertion, or please STFU.

if overall taxes go up, that's a tax raise. the way this stuff all filters through and the way "rich" people are usually smart with their money, i wouldn't be shocked if a lot of the tax raise "on the rich" was paid for by the average person.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

if overall taxes go up, that's a tax raise. the way this stuff all filters through and the way "rich" people are usually smart with their money, i wouldn't be shocked if a lot of the tax raise "on the rich" was paid for by the average person.

If, if, if. Where did Obama say anything other than he would reduce taxes for 95% of working families?