what do Bush-conservatives stand for?

[Gary_Yngve]

please fill me in.

 

Old-school conservatives stood for strict constructionism, small govt/fiscal responsibility, and states rights.

 

nowadays, the overarching principles seem to be gone, and it's just a smattering of contradictory issues.

 

-pro-life but pro-death-penalty

-wants states to choose abortion laws, but not to choose gay marriage laws

-tax cuts instead of fiscal responsibility

-corporate pandering bordering on corruption

-extreme executive domination of the three branches

-squashes amendments 1 and 4 under the premise of fighting terrorism, while protecting 2 at the expense of gun accidents/violence

[Dechristo]

aka/synonymous with "bush-league conservatism".

[Doug]

please fill me in.

 

Old-school conservatives stood for strict constructionism, small govt/fiscal responsibility, and states rights.

 

nowadays, the overarching principles seem to be gone, and it's just a smattering of contradictory issues.

 

-pro-life but pro-death-penalty

-wants states to choose abortion laws, but not to choose gay marriage laws

-tax cuts instead of fiscal responsibility

-corporate pandering bordering on corruption

-extreme executive domination of the three branches

-squashes amendments 1 and 4 under the premise of fighting terrorism, while protecting 2 at the expense of gun accidents/violence

 

-pro-life but pro-death-penalty Gotta keep the evangelical chrsitian base

-wants states to choose abortion laws, but not to choose gay marriage laws More difficult to overturn Roe V. Wade than enact new legislation

-tax cuts instead of fiscal responsibility They have no fucking clue on why taxes are necessary; but it is good rhetoric because a lot of voters think taxes are too high and this presumably gets that vote.

-corporate pandering bordering on corruption Lots of lobbying dollars

-extreme executive domination of the three branches

-squashes amendments 1 and 4 under the premise of fighting terrorism, while protecting 2 at the expense of gun accidents/violence Probably related to late stage syphlittic dementia.

 

I think the Dems have their fair share corruption as well

 

[ericb]

please fill me in.

 

Old-school conservatives stood for strict constructionism, small govt/fiscal responsibility, and states rights.

 

nowadays, the overarching principles seem to be gone, and it's just a smattering of contradictory issues.

 

-pro-life but pro-death-penalty

-wants states to choose abortion laws, but not to choose gay marriage laws

-tax cuts instead of fiscal responsibility

-corporate pandering bordering on corruption

-extreme executive domination of the three branches

-squashes amendments 1 and 4 under the premise of fighting terrorism, while protecting 2 at the expense of gun accidents/violence

 

Why do dems have nothing better to do in the early AM than start a liberal circle jerk with their buddies?

 

Do you find it ironic that the fact that the Dems take the opposing sides of many of the issues above would imply that they seem to have a similar inconsistency of platform?

 

Probably not....why don't you go back to your algorithm Yngnant

Edited September 12, 2008 by ericb

[tvashtarkatena]

please fill me in.

 

Old-school conservatives stood for strict constructionism, small govt/fiscal responsibility, and states rights.

 

nowadays, the overarching principles seem to be gone, and it's just a smattering of contradictory issues.

 

-pro-life but pro-death-penalty

-wants states to choose abortion laws, but not to choose gay marriage laws

-tax cuts instead of fiscal responsibility

-corporate pandering bordering on corruption

-extreme executive domination of the three branches

-squashes amendments 1 and 4 under the premise of fighting terrorism, while protecting 2 at the expense of gun accidents/violence

 

Why do dems have nothing better to do in the early AM than start a liberal circle jerk with their buddies?Do you find it ironic that the fact that the Dems take the opposing sides of many of the issues above would imply that they seem to have a similar inconsistency of platform?

 

Probably not....why don't you go back to your algorithm Yngnant

 

Um, isn't your hand part of this early morning circle jerk?

 

Why so grumpy lately?

[ericb]

please fill me in.

 

Old-school conservatives stood for strict constructionism, small govt/fiscal responsibility, and states rights.

 

nowadays, the overarching principles seem to be gone, and it's just a smattering of contradictory issues.

 

-pro-life but pro-death-penalty

-wants states to choose abortion laws, but not to choose gay marriage laws

-tax cuts instead of fiscal responsibility

-corporate pandering bordering on corruption

-extreme executive domination of the three branches

-squashes amendments 1 and 4 under the premise of fighting terrorism, while protecting 2 at the expense of gun accidents/violence

 

Why do dems have nothing better to do in the early AM than start a liberal circle jerk with their buddies?Do you find it ironic that the fact that the Dems take the opposing sides of many of the issues above would imply that they seem to have a similar inconsistency of platform?

 

Probably not....why don't you go back to your algorithm Yngnant

 

Um, isn't your hand part of this early morning circle jerk?

 

Why so grumpy lately?

 

After 6AM is not early in my boat

 

as far as the grumpiness, Boss quit, work sucks...I want to retire and spend some time photographing flowers and making furniture

[tvashtarkatena]

I can dig that. Plus, you've got lots of baby action at home, right? That's tough on everyone.

 

OK, here's what we'll do. I'll raise your children for a year, turn them into atheist commies, while you and your wife take a break and go have fun. Then, after the year is out, you hand over your eternal life. We can sign the papers at rope up.

[Gary_Yngve]

Do you find it ironic that the fact that the Dems take the opposing sides of many of the issues above would imply that they seem to have a similar inconsistency of platform?

 

Probably not....why don't you go back to your algorithm Yngnant

 

Not at all. A govt balanced on all three branches is the way our founding fathers intended.

 

The death penalty, regardless of being cruel, has little preventative value, and costs taxpayers much more than life without parole. Western Europe does not use the death penalty.

 

Abortion is a sticky issue, I'll admit. My arguments there are that it would happen on the black market if illegal, and it's necessary to prevent unwanted/uncared-for kids who would turn to crime and poverty from the neglect. The notion of religion-aligned teaching from the govt (creationism, or abstinence) violates amendment 1. extreme views such as no abortion even in cases of rape or incest are disgusting. really, the whole abortion thing pisses me off too because they call it that. CALL ABORTION A CHEMICALLY-ASSISTED MISCARRIAGE.

 

Benefits for 95% of Americans seems like a good thing to me. The middle class is hurting, and the neo-cons want to fix it by tax cuts to the rich.

 

I'd still love to hear from a neo-con what their overarching principles are.

 

btw, also, the whole "states rights, lower taxes" thing is funny. i bet most midwest states wouldn't be saying that if they got their federal farm subsidies pulled.

[tvashtarkatena]

Personally, I believe in states rights within the framework of the constitution, a hugely slashed military budget, and federal taxes designed to balance the budget someday, say, within the next 10,000 years or so.

 

This includes an end to schedule federal farm subsidies, BTW; a move that would greatly benefit smaller, local farms as well as diversified farms that practice organic (style) agricultures; a constituency that is less competitive due to subsidies because they, by and large, are not eligible for them. It would temporarily hurt huge factory farms largely owned by East coast investment firms. Gee...that breaks my heart.

Edited September 12, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

59% people. You can pretty much ignore the rest of the pie and spend all your effort chewing down this one piece. Yet do we even talk about it?

 

Nope.

 

Edited September 12, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

Tvash for president.

[JoshK]

Tvash for president.

 

Who will be your VP pick? Ivan?

[Doug]

There is prolly enough of TTK so that he can be both prez and veep

[tvashtarkatena]

FW. I need the tranny vote.

[tvashtarkatena]

Actually, that was a FW style joke, so it was doubly funny.

[tvashtarkatena]

Or maybe not funny at all.

[tvashtarkatena]

Shit. Already I'm flip-flopping.

[tvashtarkatena]

Ivan would make a better Secretary of War (I would change the position title to what it really is). He's large and imposing, and has a command of history such that he'd never think of actually starting one because he knows they nearly always end badly for all involved. Should the unthinkable ever be required, however, Ivan has the proper sense of cool detachment required too wreak some really serious havoc.

 

The military budget would be slashed by several orders of magnitude. One millionth of one percent of that would be reallocated for medicinal marijuana research/production. In otherwords, every man, woman, and child in America would receive about a ton of high grade bud every damn day of the week forever. With an unlimited supply of Pringles. And a new Vanagon. And there'd still be plenty left over.

 

As for VP, I'm gonna have to go with Sherri; not just to capture the much coveted artsy/lesbian vote, but cuz I've got a crush on her. Plus, I've never met her. That seems to be a pre-requisite.

Edited September 12, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[Sexy Babe]

59% people. You can pretty much ignore the rest of the pie and spend all your effort chewing down this one piece. Yet do we even talk about it?

 

Nope.

 

 

how do you think they have the most badass military in the world...

[tvashtarkatena]

Yeah, too bad it's losing two wars to poorly equipped third world foes simultaneously.

 

Here's another one: the US buys 40% of the worlds' military hardware; more than the next 10 countries combined.

 

Fuck yeah!

[Sexy Babe]

Yeah, too bad it's losing two wars to poorly equipped third world foes simultaneously.

 

Here's another one: the US buys 40% of the worlds' military hardware; more than the next 10 countries combined.

 

Fuck yeah!

 

http://mattsteinglass.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/vietnam-war-killed-38-million-vietnamese-not-21-million/

 

if you mean vietnam the u.s. lost approximately 58,000. check out how many vietnam lost. i'd say the u.s. kicked their ass.

Edited September 13, 2008 by Sexy Babe

[Gary_Yngve]

"Yeah, too bad it's losing two wars to poorly equipped third world foes simultaneously."

 

Tvash is referring to Iraq and Afgh.

[jiaofu aba]

Let us not forget that we also sell the largest dollar volume of military hardware in the world, too. We gotta keep those future foes supplied with arms so we can continue this perpetual military circle jerk ad infinitum.

[tvashtarkatena]

Yeah, too bad it's losing two wars to poorly equipped third world foes simultaneously.

 

Here's another one: the US buys 40% of the worlds' military hardware; more than the next 10 countries combined.

 

Fuck yeah!

 

http://mattsteinglass.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/vietnam-war-killed-38-million-vietnamese-not-21-million/

 

if you mean vietnam the u.s. lost approximately 58,000. check out how many vietnam lost. i'd say the u.s. kicked their ass.

 

Yeah, as English is apparently not your first language, we have these things called tenses. Present tense means it's happening right now.

 

Over 1 million Vietnamese died during Vietnam; the vast majority of them were unarmed civilians. It's pretty easy to kick the ass of a rice farmer when he's got a spade and you've got a B 52 full of 500 pound bombs. Hardly something to celebrate; it was a human tragedy on both sides.

 

And we lost. Completely. Totally. Unambiguously. The North Vietnamese were Saigon as our last choppers were leaving, as you may recall (or not). The country is still under the very same government they established shortly after we were gone.

[Sexy Babe]

Ok so even if we call that "majority"

Yeah, too bad it's losing two wars to poorly equipped third world foes simultaneously.

 

Here's another one: the US buys 40% of the worlds' military hardware; more than the next 10 countries combined.

 

Fuck yeah!

 

http://mattsteinglass.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/vietnam-war-killed-38-million-vietnamese-not-21-million/

 

if you mean vietnam the u.s. lost approximately 58,000. check out how many vietnam lost. i'd say the u.s. kicked their ass.

 

Yeah, as English is apparently not your first language, we have these things called tenses. Present tense means it's happening right now.

 

Over 1 million Vietnamese died during Vietnam; the vast majority of them were unarmed civilians. It's pretty easy to kick the ass of a rice farmer when he's got a spade and you've got a B 52 full of 500 pound bombs. Hardly something to celebrate; it was a human tragedy on both sides.

 

And we lost. Completely. Totally. Unambiguously. The North Vietnamese were Saigon as our last choppers were leaving, as you may recall (or not). The country is still under the very same government they established shortly after we were gone.

 

Okay so even if we call that "majority" a bizarre number like 3 million (total guess), that still leaves 800 thousand soldiers versus 58,000. I'm giving that majority the benefit of the doubt.