[ClorrerVeks]

Entirely possible. Depends on how he phrased it. Bush is anti-abortion, as was Bush I, and Reagan. I know they are, and they were elected with the support of a conervative base. Would Clinton still have won the liberal base if he had been anti-abortion....We both no that had he taken an anti-abortion stance he wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in hell. He never would have carried the ticket in the primary.

And as for your bastion of tolerance, how tolerant are college campuses of conservative thought? Can Minutemen organizations hold rallies without being shouted down as racists or bigots by the left? What about military recruiters being chased out of college campuses in San Fransicso by angry open minded liberal mobs?

The idea of open minded liberalism is a joke.

[JTS_tv]

I know they are, and they were elected with the support of a conervative base. Would Clinton still have won the liberal base if he had been anti-abortion....We both no that had he taken an anti-abortion stance he wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in hell. He never would have carried the ticket in the primary.

Hard to say. Arguing hypotheticals doesn't really add much, though.

And as for your bastion of tolerance, how tolerant are college campuses of conservative thought? Can Minutemen organizations hold rallies without being shouted down as racists or bigots by the left? What about military recruiters being chased out of college campuses in San Fransicso by angry open minded liberal mobs?

The idea of open minded liberalism is a joke. How did college campuses become "my bastion of tolerance?" I don't think that the behavior of idealistic but immature college students has much to do with anything, certainly not with mainstream progressive thought.

[ClorrerVeks]

Hard to say. Arguing hypotheticals doesn't really add much, though.

Especially when your position is as unrealistic as yours.



How did college campuses become "my bastion of tolerance?" I don't think that the behavior of idealistic but immature college students has much to do with anything, certainly not with mainstream progressive thought. College campuses are widely regarded as bastions of liberalism which you consider to be one and the same as tolerance.

And what exactly is 'mainstream progressive thought.'

[JTS_tv]

Especially when your position is as unrealistic as yours.

Notice who starts with the insults. I've insulted nobody. I've tried to voice my opinion in a reasonable manner, and have read your opinions carefully and responded respectfully.

College campuses are widely regarded as bastions of liberalism which you consider to be one and the same as tolerance. By whom? Conservatives?

The college I attend is by no stretch of the imagination a "bastion of liberalism." Neither is the one where I got my undergrad.

And what exactly is 'mainstream progressive thought.' Whole other dialog that would derail the thread a bit much. Perhaps we can discuss it elsewhere.

[sarasaraseda]

I know they are, and they were elected with the support of a conervative base. Would Clinton still have won the liberal base if he had been anti-abortion....We both no that had he taken an anti-abortion stance he wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in hell. He never would have carried the ticket in the primary.

And as for your bastion of tolerance, how tolerant are college campuses of conservative thought? Can Minutemen organizations hold rallies without being shouted down as racists or bigots by the left? What about military recruiters being chased out of college campuses in San Fransicso by angry open minded liberal mobs?

The idea of open minded liberalism is a joke.

All of that is exactly correct. No woman running for office in the Democratic party can receive funds from Emily's List, the primary source of funds and networking, unless she is a supporter of abortion. It is the only litmus test - and it is written in stone.

This is the party that is supposed to support free speech! That is why there are no women holding major offices who oppose abortion.

Liberalism used to support freedom and the rights of those who did not have enough. They once really were idealists. Now it is political correctness: either think the way we do, or get out!

[ClorrerVeks]

Notice who starts with the insults. I've insulted nobody. I've tried to voice my opinion in a reasonable manner, and have read your opinions carefully and responded respectfully.

How is pointing out that your position is unrealistic in any way insulting? Especially given that you stated the debate with this:

Conservatism is all about conformity; failing to conform to their wishes is considered justification for expulsion. By whom? Conservatives?

The college I attend is by no stretch of the imagination a "bastion of liberalism." Neither is the one where I got my undergrad. You honestly believe that liberal and conservative thought are given equal time and attention on college campuses? You're not being serious are you?

Whole other dialog that would derail the thread a bit much. Perhaps we can discuss it elsewhere. If you wish.

[qilmuz6v]

I love fights!!!! Whos fighting?? Oh yeah Dick Cheney vs John Warner 12 Rounds. Don King Productions only $59.95 on PPV

[Thifiadardivy]

I think you make some fair points - definitely - but you go too far with your categories. I assume (maybe I am wrong?) that you are not a conservative. I can assure you that things look different from the inside - just as I would not really know the details of how left-wingers deal with each other.

Many conservatives disgaree with Bush and (especially) Cheney and (even more especially) Rumsfeld and Rice, but there are not many people who are interested in our views.

Also, the only thing worse than Bush is the radical left - Pelosi and her gang. So until recently, disagreement with Bush is automatically perceived as support for the left.

Also, most of us liked some of Bush's early policies, espcially on the economy. The tax cuts helped keep a recession from becoming a depression.

I know exactly what you mean. You were right earlier when he/she said that most traditional conservatives keep their mouths shut. I'm not one, but I agree with it and wish it weren't so. That's part of the problem. The left and other uninformed people foolishly call Bush and Co. "conservatives" and destroy the name via either not knowing simple differences or just plain smearing. And it's a shame because there are some liberals who haven't strayed too far from Classical Jeffersonian Liberalism, are still sane, and can actually discuss the topic.

@ pram - I don't think true conservatives can be branded simply as 'keeping the status quo'. Most do embrace some change, but prefer to hold true to methods or ways of doing things that have consistently proven to work. So in one sense, maybe you're correct, but most of them are not bible thumping crazies who have their minds chisled in stone.

[corolaelwis]

It's not surprising. The reason that so many conservatives feel that the liberals are weak is because we actually allow (well, welcome and solicit) dissent. Conservatism is all about conformity; failing to conform to their wishes is considered justification for expulsion.

What total utter drivelous crap! That's about as much gabage as Scarborough came out with.

Its us who call each out when we disagree and not get on a huge "we thinks its cool to protest a war when we know nothing about it or anything else" bandwagon like liberals.

Can you fucking remember what happened when Harriet Miers was nominated? Can you remember all of the battles between McCain and Bush???How many times have the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter etc criticised this GOP lot in Congress about spending and fiscal discipline??

When was the last time Dems did the same?? We as conservatives criticise each other when we dont agree, liberals on the other hand just mellow to one chorus all the way. Your statement above was totally inaccurate and misinformed not to mention outright ridiculous.

[Gedominew]

[QUOTE=Tim;908969]

I agree on both points.



I certainly fit the category of those who feel personally disenfranchised, but I am definitely not ready to leave the GOP. Individual libertarian candidates are appealing and I would vote for one, but they aren't really a party.

As for the Democrats - I am a WASP, church-attending Christian, straight, suit-wearing, capitalist male. In the world of the Democrats, with their categories of oppressors and victims, I am Public Enemy Number One. There is no place for me there.

The Republican party is still the party of Reagan. The neocons are a brief page in history. When Bush is gone, his whole administration will leave as well. Then there is hope.



Yes, that is definitely true. But there is another factor: most of us (traditional conservatives) keep our mouths shut.

I agree with you that once Bush is gone there is hope for the GOP, but I suspect the direction I would like to see that hope progress toward is a lot different from the direction you would take. Reagan was a pragmatist that talked a good conservative game. If you want a conservative in the republican party you have to go back to Goldwater really. While Reagan was clearly more conservative than those that came before him, save for Godwater, he was not a true conservative. Reagan had no problem coming to agreement with the opposition if it gained him something he wanted, and in return they got something they wanted. Hence the pragmatism. Now if this is what you would like to see the GOP return to then I guess we are in agreement. If not I suspect we will be batteleing each other to try and direct the GOP alnog our partiular paths.

[corolaelwis]

Hmm.

The term "rino" mean anything to anyone?

How about Cheney's comment about the "11th Commandment: thou shall not speak ill of a fellow Republican?"

etc.

etc.

etc.

Oh, and I think it's hysterical that you come and lambaste me for suggesting that conservatives are conformist, while you lay back and let the likes of todd93 and Sal Munella spew nothing but lies and hate about the left without even raising an eyebrow.

Wow you're just full of garbage in this thread...i remember 2 speeches that Cheney gave in the space of a week last year in which he welcommed all debate on Iraq and said that different ideas and solutions are what make our democracy what it is.

Just look a Immigration for fuck's sake! Look at how Congressional Republicans like Tancredo and co lambast the President daily, Brownback, Hatch and Kyl in the senate are examples i mean a certain GOP Congressman refused to even stand as Bush left after the State of the union in protest of his stance on immigration.

I mean just look at examples here on this board of GOP members and conservatives who don't like Bush like Gort, Tim and Benjamin! Your assertion is truly a load of pig shit.

Oh and you speak of members here attacking the left with lies...what about the load of crap out with in refference to the right?

[Thifiadardivy]

Add me to that list above. I pretty much detest Bush, yet I'm right of center. The right has dissent in it as well, as was evidenced in this last election. I think Illegal Immigration is a prime example of this dissent within the right. True conservatives and the phonies that have hijacked the Reupublicans certainly don't get along or see eye to eye on much with that issue or many others.

[Thifiadardivy]

I agree with you that once Bush is gone there is hope for the GOP, but I suspect the direction I would like to see that hope progress toward is a lot different from the direction you would take. Reagan was a pragmatist that talked a good conservative game. If you want a conservative in the republican party you have to go back to Goldwater really. While Reagan was clearly more conservative than those that came before him, save for Godwater, he was not a true conservative. Reagan had no problem coming to agreement with the opposition if it gained him something he wanted, and in return they got something they wanted. Hence the pragmatism. Now if this is what you would like to see the GOP return to then I guess we are in agreement. If not I suspect we will be batteleing each other to try and direct the GOP alnog our partiular paths.

I agree, but I think once Bush is gone it's not going to be a peaceful re-moving in of the old right (no matter how much I would like it.) Bush has used a lot of things to gain a lot of America to his side, and that is going to make it that much more difficult for the old right to make their cause seem just and right again. The old right is going to try and cut spending (this is considering they ever get into a noteworthy congressional number) and they're going to have mud slung at them WRT security much like the left gets now. Then you're really gonna see something.

[usatramadolusa]

This is just insulting nonsense - not worthy of a thoughtful topic like this.

The phrase I heard most before your nations last war of aggression was "If you're not with us, you're against us." None of the falcons ever made the impression as if he was in some kind of dialouge with his critics. We had a "decider" and his henchmen, staying the course until their media experts told them that this idea should be relabeled as "dynamic strategy". And we also had the "enemies from within", people whose lack of patriotism caused them to disagree with the president.

[sarasaraseda]

[QUOTE]

I know exactly what you mean. You were right earlier when he/she said that most traditional conservatives keep their mouths shut. I'm not one, but I agree with it and wish it weren't so. That's part of the problem. The left and other uninformed people foolishly call Bush and Co. "conservatives" and destroy the name via either not knowing simple differences or just plain smearing. And it's a shame because there are some liberals who haven't strayed too far from Classical Jeffersonian Liberalism, are still sane, and can actually discuss the topic.

Yes, I have had many good talks with liberals who still hold to the old liberalism that believes in free speech, the significance of the individual, the importance of compassion (as opposed to pity) and holding on to the positive aspects of tradition. I have far more in common with them than with neocons, but I (and they) have almost nothing in common with the Pelosi/kennedy/Hillary/Biden/Leahy world, where free thoughts and free speech are not allowed if they disagree with the party line.

It's true that most traditional conservatives did keep quiet. We should have spoken up more often - and we are at fault over this. I would add, though, that it really is true that there is very little interest in our views.

@ pram - I don't think true conservatives can be branded simply as 'keeping the status quo'. Most do embrace some change, but prefer to hold true to methods or ways of doing things that have consistently proven to work. So in one sense, maybe you're correct, but most of them are not bible thumping crazies who have their minds chisled in stone. That is well said - I would agree. Also, I know many people who do read the Bible and (as an Anglican) the Book of Common Prayer who are not crazies. I think you would agree.

[Gintovtosik]

I am more of a Libertarian type myself so Bush is not real high on my list.

[RG3rGWcA]

>8 but I (and they) have almost nothing in common with the Pelosi/kennedy/Hillary/Biden/Leahy world, where free thoughts and free speech are not allowed if they disagree with the party line. >8

What kind of make believe world did this come from? That's rubbish.

[sarasaraseda]

What kind of make believe world did this come from? That's rubbish.

On the contrary! It is YOUR world!
The world of your posts!
Your threads!
Your absolute intolerance and contempt for those who dare to question or disagree or have an independent thought!

Find a mirror!

That is the world where this comes from! Terrifying stuff, isn't it?

[Gedominew]

What kind of make believe world did this come from? That's rubbish.

And that is different from the Republican leadership how? I suppose Bush called all the repub senators to the Whitehouse just to wish them well. Comeon you partisans really don't see how idiotic your arguments are do you?

[Thifiadardivy]

[QUOTE=Tim;910683]
Yes, I have had many good talks with liberals who still hold to the old liberalism that believes in free speech, the significance of the individual, the importance of compassion (as opposed to pity) and holding on to the positive aspects of tradition. I have far more in common with them than with neocons, but I (and they) have almost nothing in common with the Pelosi/kennedy/Hillary/Biden/Leahy world, where free thoughts and free speech are not allowed if they disagree with the party line.

It's true that most traditional conservatives did keep quiet. We should have spoken up more often - and we are at fault over this. I would add, though, that it really is true that there is very little interest in our views. Agreed, there are also differences in new and old liberals that go un-noticed by the media. A classical liberal is probably closer to what I consider myself when you get down to it. Modern American Liberalism is something else of it's own, and you did a nice job of pinning down some of the differences here.

It's just a shame that in the second line I bolded, that same line of thinking goes in the Republicans now, but instead of the hypothetical situation being one of Pelosi maybe calling Pat Moynihan "intolerant" on abortion (though Moynihan was more of a true liberal than she) -- on the right, it's more of Cheney calling Warner an 'anti-American' because he has criticisms of the war. It's a shame such name calling goes on. It's evident on both ends of the spectrum.