Sounds like you want a return to isolationism by our government concerning world affairs. Also, sounds like you want a return to the federal government that we had 200 years ago. Well, that sounds good and everything, but I doubt that is a good idea in today's modern world.
The conservatives I have agreement with in many areas are men like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and conservative Republicans such as Sarah Palin, John Boehner, Congressman Luetkemeyer (9th District of Missouri), Congressman Neugebauer (19th District of Texas), Governor Rick Perry of Texas. I also find that I agree with much of what Ron Paul says concerning economic issues.
There are others, but to make a long post short, I support the American Conservative Union and the Heritage Foundation. In fact, the Heritage Foundation is one of the best and strongest voices for intellectual conservative thought in America.
The American Conservative Union rates all Senators and Congressman according to their votes and grants them a "Conservative rating" accordingly by percentage.
Those Senators and Representatives whom score 80 and higher are good conservatives, in my opinion. By looking at the list and how the American Conservative Union presents them state by state, you can see that the ACU, at least, recognises big differences between alot of the Republicans and the vast majority of the Democrats. http://www.acuratings.org/2008senate.htm
Sounds like you want a return to isolationism by our government concerning world affairs. Also, sounds like you want a return to the federal government that we had 200 years ago. Well, that sounds good and everything, but I doubt that is a good idea in today's modern world.
The conservatives I have agreement with in many areas are men like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and conservative Republicans such as Sarah Palin, John Boehner, Congressman Luetkemeyer (9th District of Missouri), Congressman Neugebauer (19th District of Texas), Governor Rick Perry of Texas. I also find that I agree with much of what Ron Paul says concerning economic issues.
There are others, but to make a long post short, I support the American Conservative Union and the Heritage Foundation. In fact, the Heritage Foundation is one of the best and strongest voices for intellectual conservative thought in America.
The American Conservative Union rates all Senators and Congressman according to their votes and grants them a "Conservative rating" accordingly by percentage.
Those Senators and Representatives whom score 80 and higher are good conservatives, in my opinion. By looking at the list and how the American Conservative Union presents them state by state, you can see that the ACU, at least, recognises big differences between alot of the Republicans and the vast majority of the Democrats. http://www.acuratings.org/2008senate.htm
Unfortunately, the American Conservative Union does not have ratings listed yet for the year 2009.
Sean Hannity and Rush are Neoconservatives too. exactly my point. Blen Beck on the other hand disagrees with you. He often comments on how conservatism has left the conservative party
If you REALLY believe the republican party to be conservative then tell me...
1) why are we allowing a private banking institution coin our money, when its contitutionally stipulated that onely CONGRESS has the right to coin and regulate our money. We the people have no power over the regulatoin of our money now
2) why are we at continual war now, policing the world, when the conservative agenda had always been noonintervention?
3) why is government getting HUGER under republican administrations when the conservative agenda would have had the opposite effect?
4) Why are our rights being negated throguh a republican agenda patriot act?
5) WHY do we build massive debt under republican administrations when the conservative thing to do is to live within our means?
None of these things make the republican party conservative... These are NOT conservative issues
You really need to wiki 'neoconservatives' and learn about this group thats hijacked the conservative party and replaced concervative agenda, with neoconservative agenda
I did not say that the Republican party was as conservative as it ought to be.
What I did say is that the Republican party is much more conservative than the Democrats. Did you even look at the weblinks I provided?
Also, I did not say that I agree with everything that happened during the Bush presidency. But, if you still believe that there is little difference between the policies and beliefs of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid as compared to the conservative Republicans, as well as most of the Republicans in general, then I suggest that perhaps you ought to go back and look to see that Obama and his allies have gotten very little support from the vast majority of the Republicans.
__________________ "If you were the only one needing Salvation from Sin, Jesus still would have died for your salvation."
To convince me that the conservative party is still conservative all you need to do is show me why theyve followed all these revolutionary non conservative policies.
You do admit i take it that everything i've said concerning neocon policy is true, i dont think you have a problem with my examples of classic conservatism... So basicly you agree with me that everything ive said is true, but its like its justy too hard to say 'yer right we left conservatism'... and i understand this, its a hard thing to come to grips to at first... what we believe can become shattered... this happened to me when i faced these issues
i only remind us of this because i care
in order to see anything done about all this, its we the people that must 'do', they certainly arent going to undo their own power structure to begin serving a conservative agenda when theirs is profiting them so much
Seeing is most important of all, we must see these things before we can do anything about them
I have not admitted to anything beyond what I have already posted, my brother.
What it appears you want is a federal government and a foreign policy that is alot like it was 200 years ago. Am I right about that?
Also, if you cannot or do not see the great differences between the left-wing radical liberals whom are in control of our federal government, and those whom oppose them in the federal government now, then I don't know what else to say to you.... except that perhaps you ought to do some more research.
__________________ "If you were the only one needing Salvation from Sin, Jesus still would have died for your salvation."
Last edited by Vambram; 7th July 2009 at 11:44 PM.
Reason: Hit the post button too soon.
It seems to me "conservative" has become a term without meaning lately. There are lots of folks who call themselves conservative who disagree with other folks who also call themselves conservative. The term has become more of a "brand name" then a meaningful description of a coherent and identifiable political viewpoint. You can see some of that in this very thread, but you will see even more of it out in the world.
The Republican Party took a licking in 2008. Right now, the party is going through a period of trying to figure out why it took that licking. Different people in the party have different theories and are telling different stories. Some say they were cheated out of victory. Some say the party was not conservative enough. Some say the party was too reactionary. Which of these is true? It really doesn't matter. What matters is that someone or some group within the party comes up with a cohesive and coherent theory of politics and governance and is able to get votes in the ballot box for it.
I do not know which story will be triumphant within the party and perhaps convincing to a majority of the American people. I strongly suspect that the story of "We're not liberal!" will not be convincing. While that story may be able to get a broad base of support, it is a thin base of support.
I'm politically to the left of you guys. I'm happy with the most recent elections. However, I have been around the block enough times to know the dangers of hubris. I want a vigorous and principled opposition to keep my side of things in check.
__________________
No peace among the nations without peace among the religions.
No peace among the religions without dialogue among the religions.
No dialogue among the religions without investigation of the foundation of the religions. ~Hans Küng
whats wrong with wanting conservativism within the conservative party? Is there something about our form of government you DONT think would work if we were again founded squarely within the constitution?
If you are agreeable with the conservative party not being conservative, then why do they claim conservatism and why do you?
If you back nonconservative agendas from within a so called conservative party, you become complicant in the fact it doesnt any longer represent conservatives or conservatism... amazing theres nothing conservative about it
It seems to me "conservative" has become a term without meaning lately. There are lots of folks who call themselves conservative who disagree with other folks who also call themselves conservative. The term has become more of a "brand name" then a meaningful description of a coherent and identifiable political viewpoint. You can see some of that in this very thread, but you will see even more of it out in the world.
The Republican Party took a licking in 2008. Right now, the party is going through a period of trying to figure out why it took that licking. Different people in the party have different theories and are telling different stories. Some say they were cheated out of victory. Some say the party was not conservative enough. Some say the party was too reactionary. Which of these is true? It really doesn't matter. What matters is that someone or some group within the party comes up with a cohesive and coherent theory of politics and governance and is able to get votes in the ballot box for it.
I do not know which story will be triumphant within the party and perhaps convincing to a majority of the American people. I strongly suspect that the story of "We're not liberal!" will not be convincing. While that story may be able to get a broad base of support, it is a thin base of support.
I'm politically to the left of you guys. I'm happy with the most recent elections. However, I have been around the block enough times to know the dangers of hubris. I want a vigorous and principled opposition to keep my side of things in check.
Cadan, you always post in a way to give us something to think about
I actually agree with your observation that 'conservative' has become a word without meaning... in that its used so broadly as to include the antithisis of conservatism in its agenda.
i also agree they are going to have to run on somehting other than the fact they are 'the antiliberal'
I believe frankly in order to save america we need to take corporate money out of our elections... let people more bent to actually represent us, build a broad base of honest support from an excited people willing to back a true rep... let them fund the election... the people
In order for the republicans to even hope to do anything in 2012, they're really going to have to get off their corporate agendas and let the likes of a Ron Paul in there. Ron paul was by far the peoples favorite early on in the republican race, setting records in single day find raising, from people not corporations. He was even voted the winner of the first republican debate by the audience by a fairly big margin. But the media and other hopefuls barred himi from the rest of the debates
Theres a man though that would set the record straight
whats wrong with wanting conservativism within the conservative party? Is there something about our form of government you DONT think would work if we were again founded squarely within the constitution?
If you are agreeable with the conservative party not being conservative, then why do they claim conservatism and why do you?
If you back nonconservative agendas from within a so called conservative party, you become complicant in the fact it doesnt any longer represent conservatives or conservatism... amazing theres nothing conservative about it
Cadan has said something important; and that is not all conservatives can really agree with what is conservative and what is not.
What I have said, WolfbitnGodSmittn, is that the Republican party is alot different from the Democrat party... especially now that Obama and his radical left-wing liberals allies are in charge.
I have said that there are many strong conservatives within the Republican party, and I have said that the Republicans have made their share of mistakes. I have said that I do not agree with everything that the Republicans have done. ... especially the RINO's in the party.
But, I refuse to let you be the one whom defines what all conservatives should believe and do politically. The conservative movement has been around for a long time, and it is not going to go away. Also, when conservatives use lables such as neoconservatives against those whom we ought to be seeking common ground with my brother, then I believe that we are merely attacking ourselves... another wing of the conservative movement. That is not a good thing to do, in my opinion, today, when we see the March to Socialism that Obama and his radical left-wing liberals are taking our country towards.
__________________ "If you were the only one needing Salvation from Sin, Jesus still would have died for your salvation."
Last edited by Vambram; 8th July 2009 at 12:55 AM.
Reason: correction of grammar
In order for the republicans to even hope to do anything in 2012, they're really going to have to get off their corporate agendas and let the likes of a Ron Paul in there. Ron paul was by far the peoples favorite early on in the republican race, setting records in single day find raising, from people not corporations. He was even voted the winner of the first republican debate by the audience by a fairly big margin. But the media and other hopefuls barred himi from the rest of the debates
Theres a man though that would set the record straight
I agree with you (so I can't be debating, right? )
I think Ron Paul's success does show there is some traction in the American public for a libertarian/classical liberal party.
Dr. Paul was a dreadful candidate. He talked funny. He looked funny. He had no organization to speak of.
In spite of these problems, he did pretty well in the early primaries. Unfortunately for him, the Republican primary system was designed to prevent the sort of long primary battle we saw in Democratic primaries. Once the party machinery had decided nobody was going to get their first choice, it quickly selected everybody's second choice, John McCain. Dr. Paul became irrelevant.
Although Dr. Paul became irrelevant as a candidate, his ideas really struck a chord with a lot of folks. Heck, I even thought he talked a lot of sense and I'm generally on the liberal side of things.
Those folks haven't gone away--their votes are out there for someone to pick up. Their time and energy is still out there for someone to use to get a ground game going. They just need a viable candidate who will seek their support and welcome their assistance. They need the conservative equivalent of Barrack Obama, who picked up the old Howard Dean supporters and ran with them.
I don't see anyone on the "conservative" side right now who can do that. Mark Sanford imploded. Sarah Palin has never been committed to libertarian ideas. Newt Gingrich might have been able to do it fifteen years ago, but is now too entrenched in the Republican system and is busy playing the internal blame game I mentioned in my previous post. Maybe Bobby Jindal? Maybe Tim Pawlenty? Possibly, but I haven't seen them try to really reach out to folks like WBGS.
__________________
No peace among the nations without peace among the religions.
No peace among the religions without dialogue among the religions.
No dialogue among the religions without investigation of the foundation of the religions. ~Hans Küng
Last edited by CaDan; 8th July 2009 at 01:07 AM.
Reason: added a word
)
Linear Mode
