Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since most young people today consider the ethnophobic, homophobic, and socially unaware mentality of today's conservatives "uncool" will that political philosophy be tossed onto the ash heap of American history?
It is TODAY's FORM of conservatism that belongs in the dustbin of history, that being the "social" conservatives embodied by the homophobic and xenophobic white religious right. One of the worst aspects of this mob is their utter hypocrisy about many things, but especially talking out of one side of their mouth about getting government out of our lives while talking out the other side of their mouth and doing their damnedest to have government interfere and pass laws with regards to ultra-personal topics of reproductive rights and marriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyber Queen
Democrat does not always equate to liberal.
Truth is, I never really met one of those much-maligned "bleeding heart / welfare liberals" that the right keeps dragging out to poison every conversation in this nation. There's no need to create boogeymen if you have a good set of ideas to start with; if one's ideas cannot prevail in the marketplace of free thought and critical thinking, then go home. Plenty of DEMs are for balanced budgets, personal responsibility, and a lean efficient government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert
Will it die? Where you've been, it already has. True Conservative principles have been raped, pillaged and killed by the fiscally frivolous and those unaware of the separation of Church and State which is one of the foundational principles of our democracy.I hope that someday, the Republicans will go back to their roots.
The rise of the religious right ruined the GOP, who thought they could milk those folks forever by cooing in their ears about "family values" and other ploys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie117
Conservatism has been dead for over two decades.
Classic fiscal conservatism has indeed taken a back seat for about 25 years now, since the rise of the Religious Right back in the 1980's. Perhaps the death of classic fiscal conservatism goes back to Nixon and his "Southern Strategy" of courting racist white southerners. True fiscal conservatives would faint at the sight of the ethanol subsidy, war for oil, and much of what happened during Bush-43, the most UNconservative time I've ever seen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexus
Their whole ideology has proven ineffective time and time again. They have shown that they have no answers to the nation's problems, problems that they continually perpetuate and contribute to. They are divisive and supported by the most racist people in this country. On and on...they have no place in modern times.
Their mantra cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes has been a disaster. What they hate to learn is that back in the 1950's we had a tax rate of 90% at the upper margins of society. Now they whine like babies at 35% or so. Wimps. That's just one topic on which I put no credibility in their positions. And yes, I see tons of racism in the tea party and GOP extremists.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Looks to me like there are twice as many conservatives as liberals. And that number seems to be rising. I would be willing to bet that it could go as high as 45% between now and 2012. From what I see from the Massachusetts senate race, I think the Democrats are destined for a world of hurt in the next several elections.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RVA-Jsn20
Except the poll doesn't even make since. Why then weren't republicans in total power during those years?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Do you think all conservatives vote Republican? Many conservatives are libertarians. REPUBLICANS ARE NOT CONSERVATIVE. Look at the massive expansion of government under Bush. I wouldn't be surprised if 1/3rd or more of all conservatives voted for Obama. But I would be willing to bet almost zero liberals voted for McCain.
In all honesty, if every conservative American + half of all moderates voted for the same party. That party would always have a super-majority in both houses, and the presidency.
Gets to be a slippery slope question when you take into account parties labeling themselves 'extremely conservative' have actually taken on moderate ideology displacing the traditional version of conservative. They've also taken on libertarian ideology to displace traditional conservative. I for one recognized over 30yrs ago I had no representation, so I am neither dem nor republican nor libertarian. Independence party identity has been co-opted by all of the above in many ways.
Republican rebranding has been ongoing on since the late 70's. Purist libertarian ideology is something many of these tea partiers are railing against, whether they care to see it or not. The world they mean to see isn't the libertarian portrait or the hybrid portrait of republican/ libertarian from previous R administrations.
I heard an old school republican warn-- middle of the road politics leaves everyone getting run over by a bus. I mistook that statement to be a criticism of moderates, or a general unwillingness to compromise in democracy, but I see it now as a statement about the unspoken GOP identity crisis.
So much for ill thought out hybrid plans leaving our economy in shambles. GOP is actively courting moderates, rebranding itself as moderate, and lumping constituents into "us vs them" mentalities statistically. The population of moderates has never changed, but the way malevolent spin doctors desperate for power have defined them has. Just more carnie tricks, in a long unbroken chain of carnie tricks.
Folks like myself, conservative on many issues, but more appropriately called a moderate, are repulsed by the tactics used not just by extremists, but by faux grass roots astroturfing, by free speech & honest representation being decimated by the tyranny of the well heeled few. Conservatives have enough truth on their side to present their case in earnest, but resort to monkey behavior poo flinging contests. Look at this thread. Look at every thread in the forum. How is that conservative, unless we are to collectively redefine conservative based solely on their behavior as 'poo flingers'? Guilt by association? I really don't want anything to do with <alleged> conservatives even though on many issues my thinking is solidly conservative orientated.
I wholeheartedly agree with your post, and wish to point out additional facts regarding local ---> federal policy that winds up getting off point from constitution and generally too ham handed with power. Would we speak of the grand plan, the overall objectives, we cannot deny the cumulative effects of tyranny of the minority beating the living crap out of women, who are & have always been the statistical majority of this country (and the planet). We'd also have to point out that this nation was NOT founded on the basis of providing corporations a moveable feast or media elites a joe public foie gras duck to stuff.
Statistically the majority of Americans ARE moderate, and there is no way we could function if we had our own party (like women voting lockstep- how would that work out?) because they'd be elected 100% of the time at every level of governance ostensibly shuttering out progress in service to maintaining status quo.
Present tense-- Note that Obama presented himself as radical during campaign, McCain as 'Maverick', but once the hat was on his head, his feet began to walk centrist. It's inevitable, because that's what his constituency requires him to be to balance things fairly, and he's wise to know that fact. Extremists from right bash McCain, and extremists from left bash Obama. The most straightforward candidate was Hillary, walking the centrist line the entire time. Temperance is the hallmark of true statesmanship & I applaud their efforts to maintain that level of decorum even if I disagree with a specific plan here and there.
There's a vast world of difference between radical ideas that are fresh perspectives/ new approaches to old problems vs the behavioral problems I've seen going on in politics from all extremes in the political spectrum. That is to say their constructive ideas are not intrinsically wrong, but the devil being in details; how they go about implementing these ideas, failing to recognize the limitations of any given ideology, destructive endeavors to burn down the other guys house, how they go about misinformation campaigns, has been the most horrific assault on the standard of statesmanship.
When people are willing to win at any price, we all lose. Machiavellian ideology was not embraced in the constitution, but it rules us all at every level (socially, politically, economically) as if it did.
Obviously, you're a highly educated person ... and your points well taken ... but: Obama, is no more centrist than one might consider Satan would be in the Bible.
No, Obama was packaged to cater to the extreme left which I contend offers very little tangible difference to that of the extreme right. In reality, both the left and right represent the same entity, with slightly altered packaging to offer the illusion of choice. It's the age old tactic of divide and conquer ... it's the choice between lethal injection and hanging, but the end result is the same. People simply don't realize this ... so they blame each other for the other's poor choices, rather than recognize that the wool was pulled over everyone's eyes.
Obama didn't move to the center ... he just lied his rear end off, which to me is an oxymoron. What was and is so surprising is how easily the American people can be fooled. Apparently, it's true ... you can fool half of the people all of the time ... all you need do is switch sides from time to time when one side begins to wise up.
For our entire lifetimes, every politician lies time and again, over and over so consistently, it's utterly amazing that the very next one that comes along is viewed by at least half of the population as the one that is telling the truth? How ridiculous is that? It's not ridiculous enough to those who believe they are on the winning side, apparently.
Are you rooting for the Colts or the Saints today? And if your team should win ... what does it buy you? Nothing at all, unless you're one of those folks who might have cases of NFL logo material with a Horseshoe or a Fleurs de lis printed on them ... only then would there be a potential benefit. That's what we have, from the perspective of the interests of the American people as it relates to Demopublicans and Republicrats. Only a small select few stand to gain .. and to them .. they gain no matter who are the actors playing the roles of representatives. They own both sides, and the game is for entertainment of the masses, because they own the factories that make both Saints and Colts jerseys, and will gain no matter who "wins" the game.
Obama was "selected" to put a smiley face on the next set of wounds that these owners have in store for America. It was not started by Obama, nor even Bush, or Clinton. This is a process that started before you and I were even born, with one of it's first crowning achievements being the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
That is when the big European monied interests finally recaptured the breakaway colonies who thought they'd secured freedom in 1787. And from 1913 to present, there has been a slow but deliberate securing of the perimeters .. i.e. capturing total control of politics, media and industry via our monetary system, using truck loads of worthless paper as the cheese.
Those silly little wannabe rodents who think they are Sovereigns of the 13 colonies are now firmly back into the hands of their rightful owners ... all 50 states worth of them.
That's really the deal going on here. The whole thing is as phony and transparent as the World Wrestling Federation and the Simpsons.
No, I guess you don't get it .., perhaps I should have been more clear ..
The drinking and driving laws originated under the auspices of getting intoxicated drivers off the roads. And who could argue with that goal? Very reasonable. The framework for what constituted "intoxication" was established ... just 20 years ago, that was .15 BAL. And, in the beginning, law enforcement generally used personal discretion first to identify someone that was exhibiting the classic signs of intoxication ... slurred speech, shaky motor skills. etc., as different human beings have varying degrees of alcohol tolerance. (Personally, I know some individuals that shouldn't drive sober .. also individuals that might be impaired after a glass of wine, while another could drink a six pack of beer and you'd never be able to detect it).
What happened was the group MAD went on a witch hunt, putting tremendous pressure on courts and politicians to keep tweaking the rules and imposing harsher penalties. The state, seeing the financial boon in the process, went along, and the criteria for what constituted "intoxication" became narrower, lowering the BAL to .12, then, .10, then .08., with .08 about half of what used to be considered the legal limit. But that still wasn't restrictive enough, because there were too many people escaping the system's self serving financial heist by testing below .08 (about 3-4 beers depending on body weight, time, etc.) So what was the answer? Create another law ... DUI (driving under the influence) ...to go along with DWI (driving while intoxicated). Now, the low .08 BAL was no longer an issue with prosecution (persecution) because any detectable amount of alcohol whatsoever constitutes DUI as solely decided by the authorities, and carries the same prosecution and penalties as intoxication. Given that the penalties are the same for DWI and DUI, most charges are issued as DUI nowadays ... with the "totally impartial" authorities deciding whether or not a person was actually impaired, rather than a scientific, physical alcohol level.
Now, you can have a slice of pizza, and one beer, and go to jail if you drive. If you cautioned or warned anyone 20 years ago that this might happen, they would have laughed at you, and called you paranoid. But that is exactly what we have now ... a bounty system is in place ... police officers incentivized for having the most DUI arrests, and a system that is parasitically feeding off the people for the purpose of money and not road safety as it was originally intended.
y.
Different people have different tolerances to alcohol. Alcohol-naive people could get intoxicated with a BAL of 0.05. There's no magic number that is considered the safe BAL. There's nothing special about a BAL of 0.15 which is apparently what you consider to be the threshold for intoxication. That was a purely arbitrary number put out 20 years ago. That was the best they could come up with at that time. That number has been lowered as we learn more about the complex physiological effects of alcohol. Repeated alcohol ingestion has a cumulative toxic effect on the brain such that a BAL of 0 in someone with cerebellar ataxia caused by chronic alcoholism would still mean the driver is at risk for causing vehicular accidents. But since we can not preemptively screen everyone for ataxia before they drive, the next best thing to do is to make sure that they have no alcohol in their blood. This isn't "liberal extremism". This is pragmatism based on empirical evidence provided by science that was learned through the years. This is the government doing its duty to protect the public.
There may be other examples of "liberal extremism" out there, but this example you gave ain't one of them. What you gave was actually a strawman argument.
Different people have different tolerances to alcohol. Alcohol-naive people could get intoxicated with a BAL of 0.05. There's no magic number that is considered the safe BAL. There's nothing special about a BAL of 0.15 which is apparently what you consider to be the threshold for intoxication. That was a purely arbitrary number put out 20 years ago. That was the best they could come up with at that time. That number has been lowered as we learn more about the complex physiological effects of alcohol. Repeated alcohol ingestion has a cumulative toxic effect on the brain such that a BAL of 0 in someone with cerebellar ataxia caused by chronic alcoholism would still mean the driver is at risk for causing vehicular accidents. But since we can not preemptively screen everyone for ataxia before they drive, the next best thing to do is to make sure that they have no alcohol in their blood. This isn't "liberal extremism". This is pragmatism based on empirical evidence provided by science that was learned through the years. This is the government doing its duty to protect the public.
There may be other examples of "liberal extremism" out there, but this example you gave ain't one of them. What you gave was actually a strawman argument.
You give a long winded explanation for justifying tyranny under the guise of protection, and I'm not surprised.
And save the medical science class for somebody who doesn't KNOW better. 750,000 people die of medical errors each year in this country, dwarfing the number killed in ALL traffic accidents, but I don't see anyone advocating change in that, other than WHO should pay for more of it under government controlled social medicine, which would only double that figure. Oh, I take that back, the change most often attempted is ANY legislation that would limit liability of medical professionals and pharmaceutical companies who's prescription drugs also kill more people each year than all illegal drugs and alcohol related deaths combined.
You give a long winded explanation for justifying tyranny under the guise of protection, and I'm not surprised.
And save the medical science class for somebody who doesn't KNOW better. 750,000 people die of medical errors each year in this country, dwarfing the number killed in ALL traffic accidents, but I don't see anyone advocating change in that, other than WHO should pay for more of it under government controlled social medicine, which would only double that figure. Oh, I take that back, the change most often attempted is ANY legislation that would limit liability of medical professionals and pharmaceutical companies who's prescription drugs also kill more people each year than all illegal drugs and alcohol related deaths combined.
Next?
Deflecting the topic eh? Fond of strawman arguments? Listen, explain how is prohibiting people that are intoxicated with alcohol from driving a form of "liberal extremism"?
Well that can be easily explained why there are more conservatives... not everyone can be in the gifted program Liberals generally have less children as we're more educated and spend more time in school. Conservatives pop out 4-5 kids as women are viewed as baby machines and maids and then teach their children regressive views and opinions and foster closed mindedness. I thought everyone knew this?
What a bunch of horse crap!!!!! I just love when people use a stereotypes to somehow prove how open minded they are. They only prove how very CLUELESS they are.
Since most young people today consider the ethnophobic, homophobic, and socially unaware mentality of today's conservatives "uncool" will that political philosophy be tossed onto the ash heap of American history?
There are plenty of young people who are for traditional marriage. Perhaps even more who are ethnophobic. And what "mentalities" of today's conservatives are "socially unaware"? That sounds like a term you pulled out of your...you know what.
In addition, conservative states have higher total fertility rates than liberal states. Utah, perhaps the most conservative state, has the highest TFR at about 2.45. Check it out (with a nice graph correlating TFR and % voting for Bush) at http://www.isteve.com/babygap.htm . This is especially the case with socially conservative parents, who in some case use no form of birth control, having 7 or 8 or even more children. Obviously, as the conservative-parented children grow up there will be some attrition to the left, but as a general rule, it seems that most people tend to have much of the same values as their parents.
Deflecting the topic eh? Fond of strawman arguments? Listen, explain how is prohibiting people that are intoxicated with alcohol from driving a form of "liberal extremism"?
No, it was directly on point to show that getting "intoxicated" drivers off the road has nothing to do with arresting someone for drinking one beer.
I thought even a liberal would be intellectually capable of wrestling that out of the discussion. Apparently I was mistaken.
To clarify even further, Liberal extremism is the effort to explain why drinking one beer and driving is the same as drinking 24 beers and driving, using medical science which kills exponentially more people each year as the foundation for the argument. Got it now?
Only a liberal could contemplate that without getting a migraine .. and only the very dense ones could argue the point.
You give a long winded explanation for justifying tyranny under the guise of protection, and I'm not surprised.
And save the medical science class for somebody who doesn't KNOW better. 750,000 people die of medical errors each year in this country, dwarfing the number killed in ALL traffic accidents, but I don't see anyone advocating change in that, other than WHO should pay for more of it under government controlled social medicine, which would only double that figure. Oh, I take that back, the change most often attempted is ANY legislation that would limit liability of medical professionals and pharmaceutical companies who's prescription drugs also kill more people each year than all illegal drugs and alcohol related deaths combined.
Next?
Roughly 2.4 million people die a year in the United States. Your figure of 750,000 dying of medical errors would translate into 30% of the total figure. You must use a broad definition of "medical error".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Liberals generally have less children as we're more educated and spend more time in school. Conservatives pop out 4-5 kids as women are viewed as baby machines and maids and then teach their children regressive views and opinions and foster closed mindedness. I thought everyone knew this? 
They only prove how very CLUELESS they are.
