Comment from: Jack Jodell [Visitor] Email ·
Conservatives say they want lim ited government but what they REALLY want is limited government when the DEMOCRATS have power. As we saw during both the Reagan and Busg 2 administrations, when THEY run the government it is perfectly ok to have it not only big, but imperialistic and providing lots of corporate welfare as well. They claim to be strong supporters of personal freedom, but when that freedom involves having an abortion, union organizing, opposing their constant effort to impose a permanent oligarchy upon us, they will fight to the last person against you.

Because they must continually spin misinformation to get and maintain power, their tolerance level for all but their own solutions to problems is continually shrinking, and because their economic aims are to benefit only the wealthy and to actively hold everyone else down and keep them from attaining that type of wealth, I fully agree with your premise that the Republican Party will be gone within a decade.

It cannot survive economically representing only a handful while dooming all the rest to drudgery or economic slavery.
09/02/11 @ 08:51
Comment from: JMyste [Visitor]

You misunderstand what conservatives mean when they say limited government, and I am offended on their behalf.

Let me clarify. Limited government means two things:

“Limited government means that we should limit the effectiveness and cost of programs that risk inhibiting corporate profit for the betterment of the planet or the betterment of humankind. These include the EPA, the FDA, OSHA, and any other agency that is not profitable to the biggest campaign contributors in America.”

“Limited government means that we should limit the effectiveness and cost of social programs, some to the point of extinction, and that we simply abolish others entirely. These include support for the children of single or underachieving mothers, healthcare, SSA, and most programs that support the needs of the elderly. Programs designed specifically for those people who are most in need and who could not possibility make monetary or marketing contributions to Republican campaigns have no constitutional justification.”

I do believe that many conservatives are sincere in their desire to limit government, and for noble reasons. Their approach, its turns out is ignoble.

09/02/11 @ 11:19
Comment from: The Heathen Republican [Visitor] ·
"Conservatives are opposed to government involvement. Regulations, taxation, and government itself are viewed as an infringement of rights."

Mr Deming, I've made this point before, so I'm forced to assume you either didn't understand it or have simply rejected it outright. I will make it once more.

I am a conservative, so I ask you to take my word for this: what you describe is not a conservative idea, but a libertarian one. You are presenting a debate between liberals and libertarians, not liberals and conservatives.

I take no offense to your post because I see that you are not talking to me or conservatives like me. I am concerned about the confusion you are sowing with your readers.
09/02/11 @ 21:05
Comment from: manifesto joe [Visitor] ·
I'm a journalist with 33 years of experience, and there's a problem I'm seeing in the profession. Ultimately, we are NOT obligated to present both sides of an issue when one side of the issue simply hasn't got the facts to support their thesis. Joseph Pulitzer said that the three things that are most important in journalism are "accuracy, accuracy, and accuracy." That's been forgotten, sacrificed on the altar of ideological balance. Liberals certainly aren't right about everything -- but when you've got conservatives like Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann uttering total absurdities and falsehoods daily, one's obligation as a journalist is to point out the essential lie. I'll close this comment now in the interest of brevity.
09/03/11 @ 00:55
Comment from: manifesto joe [Visitor] ·
Part Two: Journalists are ethically obligated to present the facts. They are not obligated to present anybody's erroneous rhetoric. We live in a time in which Lardbaugh and Hannity are regarded as serious journalists, while they are in fact propagandists who could perhaps have taught Joseph Goebbels a thing or two about the art. Balance is a consideration, and I'm all for conservatives having a full presentation when they have the facts on their side. Sadly, that has all too frequently been NOT the case since the Fairness Doctrine was done away with. It is the obligation of journalists to point out the errors, not to just present both sides in the manner of stenographers with amnesia.
09/03/11 @ 01:08
Comment from: manifesto joe [Visitor] ·
A response to the Heathen Republican:

Sit back and listen to Republican rhetoric for a while, and it's not hard to apprehend that on economic issues, libertarian thinking thoroughly dominates American conservatism. You do make an important distinction between libertarian-style conservatism and classic Burkean Euro-conservatism. But this distinction has very limited relevance in the U.S., because there are so few classic conservatives (unless you want to count the ones in the Democratic Party). I respect the fact that classic conservatism is fundamentally concerned with the preservation of a society and the BEST elements of its past. Sadly, one is hard-pressed to find any such conservatives here. Our "conservatives," such as they are, glamorize pre-1935 America, an America that was perhaps utopia for an elite few, but for others was 60-hr. workweeks and half of our elderly living in poverty. Such people romanticize a past that never was, and that's largely the source of their disconnect with facts.
09/03/11 @ 08:26

Comments are closed for this post.

« Subversives, Racists, Hobbits, Judge Judy, GodGOP Raffling Gun like One Used in Assassination Attempt »