Why Conservatives Are Smarter

[hoosier]

Originally posted by RACooper
And if you believe that I got some nice mountain lake property to sell you in Saskatchewan

If you don't believe it is true, why are the two natl. anti-WM groups funded by the retail clerks unions? (per USA Today article this week) It's not a secret.

Anything in north GA/NC mountains?

[Rudey]

Originally posted by layla2728
1 - tried and failed... mostly because he just used a good PR-sounding name for an act that effectively did nothing

2 - last I heard, we haven't caught Osama yet... you know, the one who actually claimed responsibility for the attacks

3 - even if this was true... since when has welfare been a priority for republicans?

4 - the guy he appointed to the UN has had nothing but disrespectful comments to make about the organization, and people around the world thought the appointment made a mockery of the position

going along with ktsnake... just how does the expansion of the government under Bush go along with conservative values? aren't they supposed to be the ones for decentralization? but I could be wrong I guess... I'm only a poli sci major.

1) Failed? That explains the measured and recorded improvements (http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/impo...lbworking.html). That explains why so many Dems were on board, and so many were upset that they wanted to present an idea like this first.

2) Yeah Clinton should have killed him. Clinton should have pursued him. Clinton, didn't. Now we have a problem. And now even if Osama died, that means nothing. Al Quaeda is considered a consulting group that provides financing and education to local terror cells and takes credit on a parallel level.

3) Getting people off welfare is.

4) Actually now that the politics game has subsided by Democrats on this, Bolton is getting praised quite a bit for his ability to get things done in the UN and his pursuit of serious reforms.

-Rudey

[Rudey]

Originally posted by ktsnake
So as a "conservative", he's expanded the federal government's size and influence more than anyone in recent history?

Again, how does Bush support conservative values?

His pro-business actions and tax cutting activities are very conservative.

His expansion of spending and the deficit is not and can only be explained by the incorporation of the liberal Christians into the Republican party from the Democratic Party (many also believe that these same Christians are reconsidering a switch back).

-Rudey

[Rudey]

Originally posted by kstar
1) How does testing and "every child gets left behind" help schools?

2) He ignored memos from the Clinto administration about possible terrorist activity, which led to 9/11, then attacked a country under the guise of WMDs, while disregarding the UN watchdogs information that there were none. Guess what, there weren't!

3) Why not help welfare recipients get jobs, not put them further in debt?

4) Though, I think that the Supreme Court should be an impartial body. I don't like the idea of the Republicans controlling all three branches of government, including the House and Senate.

Also, WTF? "spent like a democrat?" His spending is out of control, but democrats typically raise money for their spending, not cut taxes. Wasn't the highest budget surplus under a Democrat? I do believe it was. However, the two highest deficits were under both Bushes.

1) How about you make a point?

2) "During Clinton's tenure, Al-Qaeda began to emerge as a major terrorist threat. In 1998, the group bombed the American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. At the end of his term, in late 2000, the terrorists struck again with the USS Cole bombing. By this time, Clinton has stated he regarded Al-Qaeda as the foremost threat to national security. [12] In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the independent investigating commission was critical of Clinton for focusing more on diplomatic than military means to eliminate the bin Laden threat."

That surplus was the results of Republicans pushing Clinton back, weakening him, which led to a surplus.

-Rudey

[Rudey]

Originally posted by kstar
Actually, the Nazis were at the far right of Germany's political spectrum.

Though, most political scientists now, don't use the linear model, they prefer a circle. If you go to far to the left or right, you are basically at the same place. For instance, the Chinese Totalitarian "Communist" Regime is basically equivalent to the Totalitarian Nazi Regime.

"Nazism was the ideology held by the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, commonly called NSDAP or the Nazi Party), which was led by its "Führer", Adolf Hitler. The word Nazism is most often used in connection with the dictatorship of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945 (the "Third Reich"), and it is derived from the term National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus, often abbreviated NS). "

If one were to draw a ven diagram, the intersection between socialism and fascism is rather large. State control of businesses is really not a conservative value, neither is the large expansion of government and its powers. It's not quite liberal and not quite conservative. Plus the definitions of liberal and conservative vary.

-Rudey

[Kevin]

Originally posted by Rudey
His pro-business actions and tax cutting activities are very conservative.

That I'll agree with you on. But tax cuts need to accompany cuts in spending. Otherwise, the tax cuts are just irresponsible.

His expansion of spending and the deficit is not and can only be explained by the incorporation of the liberal Christians into the Republican party from the Democratic Party (many also believe that these same Christians are reconsidering a switch back).

-Rudey

I have a hard time categorizing the fundamentalists as liberal or conservative. I think they are sort of in a class of their own. The Dems can have them back though. Neither party will give them what they want. Sure, the Republicans talk a good game about being against abortion and other such things, but we'd rather have the issue than the solution.

-- And I'm not sure I buy that NCLB, the TSA, or the Patriot Act were creations of the fundamentalists Christians if that's what you're trying to allege.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by ktsnake
That I'll agree with you on. But tax cuts need to accompany cuts in spending. Otherwise, the tax cuts are just irresponsible.



I have a hard time categorizing the fundamentalists as liberal or conservative. I think they are sort of in a class of their own. The Dems can have them back though. Neither party will give them what they want. Sure, the Republicans talk a good game about being against abortion and other such things, but we'd rather have the issue than the solution.

-- And I'm not sure I buy that NCLB, the TSA, or the Patriot Act were creations of the fundamentalists Christians if that's what you're trying to allege.

They are liberal like Carter. Not exactly happy about the war and want bigger government spending in most areas (schools, foreign aid, even the environment, etc.). Both parties will give them what they want. Everyone wants votes. I wish they were Democrats again too. It would make me stop smacking my head every time I read about a new act in the paper.

And no NCLB was actually pretty cross-platform and bipartisan with Christian support as well. The TSA is the security people at the airport? If that's who you're referring to, I don't think you'll find Howard Dean or anyone not conservative (nor Christian) saying they want less security at the airport. I am waiting for them to open up the fast line or adopt something like Indonesia (I think it's Indonesia) where they just scan your eye. The Patriot Act was pretty cross platform too, although with time limits.

Until the congressional elections are going to be over, the American people will suffer. Politicians will jump around on issues and attack each other over anything to get higher numbers.

-Rudey

[hoosier]

Originally posted by kstar

Though, most political scientists now, don't use the linear model, they prefer a circle. If you go to far to the left or right, you are basically at the same place. For instance, the Chinese Totalitarian "Communist" Regime is basically equivalent to the Totalitarian Nazi Regime.

Sure, the lib professors and the revisionists are embarrassed that the most reviled people of the 20th century - the Nazis - are truly socialists and lefties, so they want to change history and change facts.

If your profs are teaching this, I hope you will think critically about it.

I don't see how becoming more conservative would make you a lib, or becoming more lefty and radical would make you conservative.

The commies are leftists too.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by Rudey

Until the congressional elections are going to be over, the American people will suffer. Politicians will jump around on issues and attack each other over anything to get higher numbers.

-Rudey

I think we substantially agree on everything but the TSA -- there, the President/Congress nationalized an entire industry. They replaced it with a federal agency that hasn't shown to be any better at all. To say that as an administration, the Bush admin doesn't think that independent contractors (what airline security used to be) can't do a good job defies logic. We've never in the history of the nation used more independent contractors for national security purposes than right now.. I agree as to more airline security, not less, but does the government really have to foot the bill? Why can the airports not supply this competently?

(something for another thread I guess)

[Kevin]

Originally posted by hoosier
Sure, the lib professors and the revisionists are embarrassed that the most reviled people of the 20th century - the Nazis - are truly socialists and lefties, so they want to change history and change facts.

If your profs are teaching this, I hope you will think critically about it.

I don't see how becoming more conservative would make you a lib, or becoming more lefty and radical would make you conservative.

The commies are leftists too.

Hoosier, your argument just does not stack up. Let me try and repeat what I'm understanding you to say:

Left-wing Americans and Nazis are similar to Communists.

If that is what you're saying, please offer some evidence to support it. Which positions do they all agree on where you can say that they are not only similar, but the same.

Redistribution of the wealth does not equate to 'From each according to their ability to each according to their need'. They're different things.

Read your own signature, that's some good advice.

[kddani]

Originally posted by hoosier

PS: Posting names is a violation of TOS, according to John.

P.P.S.- Posting copyrighted text is also against the TOS, as you've been told a number of times, but yet you continue to do so

[Rudey]

Originally posted by kddani
P.P.S.- Posting copyrighted text is also against the TOS, as you've been told a number of times, but yet you continue to do so

Do you feel people have the right to post his name because he posts articles? If not, don't link the two together.

Also, unless I'm remembering incorrectly, you defended zntke when he was posting copyrighted info. John never quite resolved that. Is posting a blurb not posting copyrighted info? I'm not quite sure that jives. I am happy to see your attitude show flexibility and change your opinion on it.

-Rudey
--Defending the little guy since the beginning of time.

[kddani]

Originally posted by Rudey
Do you feel people have the right to post his name because he posts articles? If not, don't link the two together.

Also, unless I'm remembering incorrectly, you defended zntke when he was posting copyrighted info. John never quite resolved that. Is posting a blurb not posting copyrighted info? I'm not quite sure that jives. I am happy to see your attitude show flexibility and change your opinion on it.

-Rudey
--Defending the little guy since the beginning of time.

Personally I feel that people have the legal right to post his name for multiple reasons, but I respect John's wishes.

I believe you're remembering incorrectly. I'm 99.9% positive i've never defended posting copyrighted articles. And John has recently stated that cutting and pasting copyrighted articles is NOT acceptable, and it's a clear violation of the TOS. And hoosier has been informed of that.

-Since when is hoosier a little guy? I guess until he makes an anti-Semitic comment.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by kddani
Personally I feel that people have the legal right to post his name for multiple reasons, but I respect John's wishes.

I believe you're remembering incorrectly. I'm 99.9% positive i've never defended posting copyrighted articles. And John has recently stated that cutting and pasting copyrighted articles is NOT acceptable, and it's a clear violation of the TOS. And hoosier has been informed of that.

-Since when is hoosier a little guy? I guess until he makes an anti-Semitic comment.

Dani his name has nothing to do with copyrighted material. Nothing.

I am pretty sure I remember correctly unless there was another KD in law school that acted like you.

You constantly get into pissing matches, act heinous towards people, and act like you're some white knight.

What does anti-semitic comments have to do with anything? Perhaps you should explain yourself.

Your line of thinking is ridiculous. I cannot imagine what kind of law firm you work for or what poor souls benefit from it, but wow.

Listen, if you want to push it with me go ahead. But now go ahead and explain the anti-semitic thing.

-Rudey

[kddani]

Originally posted by Rudey
Dani his name has nothing to do with copyrighted material. Nothing.

I am pretty sure I remember correctly unless there was another KD in law school that acted like you.

You constantly get into pissing matches, act heinous towards people, and act like you're some white knight.

What does anti-semitic comments have to do with anything? Perhaps you should explain yourself.

Your line of thinking is ridiculous. I cannot imagine what kind of law firm you work for or what poor souls benefit from it, but wow.

Listen, if you want to push it with me go ahead. But now go ahead and explain the anti-semitic thing.

-Rudey

Feel free to find me the post where I supported it. If you do, I will be happy to own up to it. Even to humor you, i've done a search on my post and all that has turned up is that i've held the same position consistently. The TOS can't be any clearer: "You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you." Cut and dry, no wiggle room for interpretation.

I never said they had anything to do with one another. But the rules apply to him as well, they can't just be used for his benefit.

Rudey, you're in no position to to talk about pissing matches and acting heinously towards people. You thrive on both.

Hoosier's made some ridiculous racist comments before, and if I remember correctly, at some point in time has made anti-semitic comments. It's been going on for years, and many of them have been deleted and/or edited.