Where are the Conservatives?

[remington762700]

Newt has other issues that turn him off to Conservatives at large besides "appeal".

He's certainly not anywhere near being a Goldwater/Reagan conservative mold.

We agree....

[Eupher]

We agree....

Okay, so now that we're done philosophizing about what could have, should have, would have been, and we're stuck with the candy-date we've got -- and I think we're all pretty much in agreement that Romney is no conservative -- what do you think Romney is going to do on these issues, assuming he wins in November?

1.  Obamacare
2.  Out of control spending
3.  Iran

[remington762700]

People are more than educated these days.  Your mistake is assuming they aren't and you're the only one in the room with the answers.

People (of voting age) graduate thinking Utah is a country.....if it's not something that can be played on a gaming machine, seen on prime time TV or isn't illegal their not interested. Are you suggesting the "dumbing down" of the citizens of this country hasn't worked? ....seriously?? That's how people successfully win elections..."the Republicans want to poison the water/poison the air. Misinformation and hyperbole, scare tactics and emotional arguments.

If you think the American population is so smart perhaps you wouldn't mind participating in the Dihydrogen monoxide ban that's been floating around.

This topic was based on the premise that "non-conservative" republican candidates hurts conservatism so now I'm a know it all? That's lame.   

[Splashdown]

Remington, you probably got a bit of a negative reaction because of the nature of your question. Please know that whenever somebody starts asking about "real" conservatives, there's a good bet that the asker is some sort of 100 percenter or Ronbot. Not your fault; it's just the nature of this board. I think you'll find that although many most of us here are conservatives, we come in all flavors. I'm more socially conservative, for example, than perhaps others on this board, but maybe not as hard-line fiscally conservative.

Whenever I see a new guy talking about "real" conservatives, it raises flags.

That said, I'd like to see more grassroots, local elections go to conservatives. Omaha Steve could have done more damage to the day-to-day lives of Bellevue residents, probably, than Obama.

Just my two cents.

[txradioguy]

People (of voting age) graduate thinking Utah is a country.....if it's not something that can be played on a gaming machine, seen on prime time TV or isn't illegal their not interested. Are you suggesting the "dumbing down" of the citizens of this country hasn't worked? ....seriously?? That's how people successfully win elections..."the Republicans want to poison the water/poison the air. Misinformation and hyperbole, scare tactics and emotional arguments.

If you think the American population is so smart perhaps you wouldn't mind participating in the Dihydrogen monoxide ban that's been floating around.

This topic was based on the premise that "non-conservative" republican candidates hurts conservatism so now I'm a know it all? That's lame.  

Your arrogant and quite frankly completely stupid idea that voters are a bunch if ignorant uncurious sheep isn't going to win you many friends around here.

You've fallen into the Liberal media trap you are scoffing at others for supposedly falling for.

You'd have probable been correct in your assumption prior to the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine and the explosion of the internet.

The Dems roll out that tired old crap and the population realizes someone is crying wolf.

I know what you started your topic off discussing...and your question was asked and answered.  Very completely by several of us.

What is lame is the arrogant and snobbish way you are classifying people.

You sound like a Lib when you do it.

[Danglars]

Of course but your taking a defensive strategy. Stop the others before you yourself can advance.

 

This statement fails itself to understand conservatism. Ours is not, for the most part, an active political philosophy. it's one of limited government. There aren't tasks for conservatism through government to "do"; there's a civil society for conservatism to make sure government gets out of the way of and stops seeking to dominate--which is the natural tendency of any government. So, in fact, defense IS offense to conservatives. We seek to roll back the damage liberalism/statism has done, which you name defense, but what would you have conservatism, as a philosophy, seek to accomplish through government instead of the growing tyranny of statism-through-liberalism? Because if you name even one thing that you want to accomplish through government at any level, you will have left the path of conservatism.

[obumazombie]

When it comes to the electorate, the 20% that are liberal already have their votes bought and paid for. A very large majority of these are not well educated on matters of civics and political science. What they want is the handout they were promised when their vote was bought. The 40% who are conservative are very well educated. The remaining 40% are easily swayed at the last minute by scandal, intrigue, libel, and slander.

[remington762700]

When it comes to the electorate, the 20% that are liberal already have their votes bought and paid for. A very large majority of these are not well educated on matters of civics and political science. What they want is the handout they were promised when their vote was bought. The 40% who are conservative are very well educated. The remaining 40% are easily swayed at the last minute by scandal, intrigue, libel, and slander.

If I did not explain it in this way, you just did. Thank you Sir.

[Kyle Ricky]

When it comes to the electorate, the 20% that are liberal already have their votes bought and paid for. A very large majority of these are not well educated on matters of civics and political science. What they want is the handout they were promised when their vote was bought. The 40% who are conservative are very well educated. The remaining 40% are easily swayed at the last minute by scandal, intrigue, libel, and slander.

Hi5. Good post.

[obumazombie]

^Thank you both.

[remington762700]

Your arrogant and quite frankly completely stupid idea that voters are a bunch if ignorant uncurious sheep isn't going to win you many friends around here.

You've fallen into the Liberal media trap you are scoffing at others for supposedly falling for.

You'd have probable been correct in your assumption prior to the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine and the explosion of the internet.

The Dems roll out that tired old crap and the population realizes someone is crying wolf.

I know what you started your topic off discussing...and your question was asked and answered.  Very completely by several of us.

What is lame is the arrogant and snobbish way you are classifying people.

You sound like a Lib when you do it.

Is this part of the Borg Collective or what? "I'm not going to win any friends?" So if I disagree with you I'm not welcome here? Most voters are not interested in politics therefore they cast their vote based on other factors. (That stands to reason doesn't it?) I'm almost certain I'll never meet any of you and while I'll come to respect certain peoples opinions, there are others I won't and I expect that others will feel the same way about what I post.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl0WwC9OcOI


What liberal trap am I falling into?


The Fairness Doctrine and the explosion of the internet doesn't educate people if they don't want listen or read about politics. I would guess that most people watch 30 minutes of world news nightly and would calculate "their well informed". Could it be that the attempt by the left to reenact the Fairness Doctrine could be somewhat based on an idea that the commentary people do listen to is destructive to their agenda? Wouldn't that be reason enough to want to reenact it?

What "tired old crap" is it that you're referring to?

I'm answering peoples questions and comments to the best of my ability. If you believe this topic is over, you're free to go to another thread.

How would you classify people, for example in the video? With the absents of inflection in the written word I find it curious how you come to the conclusion that I am either arrogant or snobbish.

(Sounds to me like someone needs a hug)

[obumazombie]

^The video you posted is the perfect example of zombies for owebuma. They chant with their heads lolling about, glassy eyes out of focus, vacant stare, arms outreached, hands grabbing for handouts, stumbling around aimlessly, moaning, groaning. It's the inspiration for my forum name, with some other tributes thrown in. Good video by the way.

[remington762700]

This statement fails itself to understand conservatism. Ours is not, for the most part, an active political philosophy. it's one of limited government. There aren't tasks for conservatism through government to "do"; there's a civil society for conservatism to make sure government gets out of the way of and stops seeking to dominate--which is the natural tendency of any government. So, in fact, defense IS offense to conservatives. We seek to roll back the damage liberalism/statism has done, which you name defense, but what would you have conservatism, as a philosophy, seek to accomplish through government instead of the growing tyranny of statism-through-liberalism? Because if you name even one thing that you want to accomplish through government at any level, you will have left the path of conservatism.

I would agree with you. Unless I'm mistaken we're talking about the same thing.  In another forum someone posted all the grand things democrats, liberals and progressives have done over the ages to the betterment of society and I presume to entice someone into an attempt to counter with a list of their own. Yet how would one combat the removal of the 10 Commandments from public property if not by political means? How is a parent entitled to be informed of a 14 year olds abortion if not by eventually being heard by a politician? My reference to the word "offense" simply meant things like Newts Contract with America that rescinded destructive activity within the current way government was conducting business. In the case of the Constitution (Kelo vs City of New London) which involved an Eminent Domain issue, concerned citizens within these States began to clarify Eminent Domain so that Cities starved of revenue couldn't just seize property to increase funding. When using the term "going on the offense"  rather than having a citizens property taken and trying then to get it back.    

[remington762700]

^The video you posted is the perfect example of zombies for owebuma. They chant with their heads lolling about, glassy eyes out of focus, vacant stare, arms outreached, hands grabbing for handouts, stumbling around aimlessly, moaning, groaning. It's the inspiration for my forum name, with some other tributes thrown in. Good video by the way.

Is there something I'm not explaining clearly enough for txradioguy you understand that he doesn't or are you or are you at risk of being referred to as arrogant and snobbish also?

[obumazombie]

Is there something I'm not explaining clearly enough for txradioguy you understand that he doesn't or are you or are you at risk of being referred to as arrogant and snobbish also?

When I started out in the forum I was nearly outright called a mole. So what do I know ? I don't know how the forum, or individual members react towards me. If I were to base it just on my reputation, it would be a wash. Maybe they'll warm up to me, maybe I'll wear on them, but I am me, like Shakespeare says, to thine own self be true. I love having a laugh. I'm quite irreverent, and I like to think I jostle people out of their comfort zones without them realizing it. I don't know if that answers your question, either way, ask me again in 1,000 posts, and we'll compare notes.

[remington762700]

Okay, so now that we're done philosophizing about what could have, should have, would have been, and we're stuck with the candy-date we've got -- and I think we're all pretty much in agreement that Romney is no conservative -- what do you think Romney is going to do on these issues, assuming he wins in November?
 
1.  Obamacare
2.  Out of control spending
3.  Iran

As a few here have already pointed out, Mitt has a healthcare program of his own that depending on the SCOTUS decision could go either way. If SCOTUS strikes down socialized medicine Romney may have no choice but to let it go. On the other hand he might repeal Obama care and tailor some form of his own plan which SCOTUS won't find unconstitutional. (The Government option?)

If we take what's said at face value it seems he will repeal Obamacare but what I worry about is replacing it with a "Happier, friendlier" form of socialized medicine. While I'm willing to concede there are many in this country that need affordable healthcare I don't have any suggestions how to fix it.

Out of control spending. Dr Walter Williams (former economics professor at George Mason University) laid out a couple of scenarios by which the Fed could correct certain financial problems facing the government and the best case (with maximum cuts to the Federal budget) took something like 12 years to correct. It would be nice to see some reforms to government spending but I can't forget Mitt is a North East politician and politicians in New England don't win elections with phrases like "we're not going to spend any money to pay down our debt".

Iran. I would venture a guess that like most modern republicans Romney will do alright with foreign policy but Iran is a problem to nearly everyone. Ahmadinejad is a radical held in check by the Ayatollah's but who can say for how long. If Israel conducted a preemptive attack to destroy Iran's ability to collect nuclear fuel.....I think they would take his chain off. Deplomacy hasn't worked so the question is "who has the balls to make the first move" or should we?

(Again I'll guess) Romney will keep safely surrounded by other like mind people who may threaten to rattle sabers but in the end I would tend to believe it will take the UN to get us involved in another operation in the Mid East.

[remington762700]

When I started out in the forum I was nearly outright called a mole. So what do I know ? I don't know how the forum, or individual members react towards me. If I were to base it just on my reputation, it would be a wash. Maybe they'll warm up to me, maybe I'll wear on them, but I am me, like Shakespeare says, to thine own self be true. I love having a laugh. I'm quite irreverent, and I like to think I jostle people out of their comfort zones without them realizing it. I don't know if that answers your question, either way, ask me again in 1,000 posts, and we'll compare notes.

Roger that......998 left to go.

[remington762700]

Remington, you probably got a bit of a negative reaction because of the nature of your question. Please know that whenever somebody starts asking about "real" conservatives, there's a good bet that the asker is some sort of 100 percenter or Ronbot. Not your fault; it's just the nature of this board. I think you'll find that although many most of us here are conservatives, we come in all flavors. I'm more socially conservative, for example, than perhaps others on this board, but maybe not as hard-line fiscally conservative.

Whenever I see a new guy talking about "real" conservatives, it raises flags.

That said, I'd like to see more grassroots, local elections go to conservatives. Omaha Steve could have done more damage to the day-to-day lives of Bellevue residents, probably, than Obama.

Just my two cents.

OK. Point taken. I'll keep that in mind and I appreciate the input. Thanks

[txradioguy]

Is there something I'm not explaining clearly enough for txradioguy you understand that he doesn't or are you or are you at risk of being referred to as arrogant and snobbish also?

You're explaining it clearly enough.  Hence my previous comments.

You come in here insulting people at large and asking a place with the name Conservative in it's title "where are the Conservatives?

Gee...can't imagine why anyone would react with anything but candy and flowers to that.   

You're tossing out a lot of broad brush insults and assumptions about people when research these days proves otherwise.

You want to debate the merits of whether or not Conservatism is still viable and electable when you've got a compliant media providing pure propaganda for one side over the other...lets do that.

Just do it with out trying to purposely insult people's intelligence.

[remington762700]

You're explaining it clearly enough.  Hence my previous comments.

You come in here insulting people at large and asking a place with the name Conservative in it's title "where are the Conservatives?

Gee...can't imagine why anyone would react with anything but candy and flowers to that.   

You're tossing out a lot of broad brush insults and assumptions about people when research these days proves otherwise.

You want to debate the merits of whether or not Conservatism is still viable and electable when you've got a compliant media providing pure propaganda for one side over the other...lets do that.

Just do it with out trying to purposely insult people's intelligence.

[I originally started my post garnished with a bit of sarcasm but I am not here to get into a pissing contest but to pick the brains of people who have knowledge that I don't. Despite your earlier claim, not only do I not know everything, I also don't know most everything. So here is my olive branch.]

When I asked "where are the conservatives" I was excluding the Rhino's...."Rhino's". People who call themselves republican, enter office, do little to nothing to advance the conservative ideology there-by causing the individual's vote who put them in office to suffer the agenda of a moderate whose only concern was getting elected. If I caused confusion with my title, I would have cleared up any misunderstanding if I had been asked.

On the topic of "broad brush insults" can you please be more specific? If I have used language that people have interpreted as an insult without cause I will apologize. I entered this forum believing that we were on the same team so if my slang is foreign to the rest of the group I can assure those reading this were not the intended target. 

I'm not debating whether or not conservatism is viable, I'm making the claim that it isn't and I gave examples of why I believe it isn't. My opinion isn't so weak it can't withstand debate however, if it can't I'd like to know about it so I can reevaluate my position. (Oh, and my claim did not originate from typical liberal sources)

It is my belief that everyone is ignorant about something. That is to say the smartest person in this room can be stumped when being asked the right question and I am no exception to the rule. I came here to learn from other conservatives whose opinions I can respect to help me make better political decisions in the future. I have never "got my rocks off" with sarcasm and condensation when being asked my position or interpretation but I expect the same courtesy.

So how about it Sgt? Are we going to shake hands and work together to evaluate theories on ways to strengthen conservatism or are you looking for one more swing?


On a side note; what is/was your MOS?   

[remington762700]

That's "sarcasm and condescension"

[formerlurker]

[I originally started my post garnished with a bit of sarcasm but I am not here to get into a pissing contest but to pick the brains of people who have knowledge that I don't. Despite your earlier claim, not only do I not know everything, I also don't know most everything. So here is my olive branch.]

When I asked "where are the conservatives" I was excluding the Rhino's...."Rhino's". People who call themselves republican, enter office, do little to nothing to advance the conservative ideology there-by causing the individual's vote who put them in office to suffer the agenda of a moderate whose only concern was getting elected. If I caused confusion with my title, I would have cleared up any misunderstanding if I had been asked.

On the topic of "broad brush insults" can you please be more specific? If I have used language that people have interpreted as an insult without cause I will apologize. I entered this forum believing that we were on the same team so if my slang is foreign to the rest of the group I can assure those reading this were not the intended target. 

I'm not debating whether or not conservatism is viable, I'm making the claim that it isn't and I gave examples of why I believe it isn't. My opinion isn't so weak it can't withstand debate however, if it can't I'd like to know about it so I can reevaluate my position. (Oh, and my claim did not originate from typical liberal sources)

It is my belief that everyone is ignorant about something. That is to say the smartest person in this room can be stumped when being asked the right question and I am no exception to the rule. I came here to learn from other conservatives whose opinions I can respect to help me make better political decisions in the future. I have never "got my rocks off" with sarcasm and condensation when being asked my position or interpretation but I expect the same courtesy.

So how about it Sgt? Are we going to shake hands and work together to evaluate theories on ways to strengthen conservatism or are you looking for one more swing?


On a side note; what is/was your MOS?   

It's RINOs (a phrase which by the way is a height of political immaturity to use), and if you want an echo chamber then you are looking for freerepublic.com.

Godspeed on your cyber travels.

[formerlurker]

As a few here have already pointed out, Mitt has a healthcare program of his own that depending on the SCOTUS decision could go either way. If SCOTUS strikes down socialized medicine Romney may have no choice but to let it go. On the other hand he might repeal Obama care and tailor some form of his own plan which SCOTUS won't find unconstitutional. (The Government option?)

If we take what's said at face value it seems he will repeal Obamacare but what I worry about is replacing it with a "Happier, friendlier" form of socialized medicine. While I'm willing to concede there are many in this country that need affordable healthcare I don't have any suggestions how to fix it.

What is in place in MA is a shell of what was proposed by Mitt Romney - which he has held pretty much from day one, is a STATE decision.   What part of that are you having the most problem with understanding?

Out of control spending. Dr Walter Williams (former economics professor at George Mason University) laid out a couple of scenarios by which the Fed could correct certain financial problems facing the government and the best case (with maximum cuts to the Federal budget) took something like 12 years to correct. It would be nice to see some reforms to government spending but I can't forget Mitt is a North East politician and politicians in New England don't win elections with phrases like "we're not going to spend any money to pay down our debt".

Mitt Romney being governor of a state with a super-super-super majority of Democrats, most being super urban leftists.   The budget he proposed in January was in shreds when it made its way back to him in June.   

 

Iran. I would venture a guess that like most modern republicans Romney will do alright with foreign policy but Iran is a problem to nearly everyone. Ahmadinejad is a radical held in check by the Ayatollah's but who can say for how long. If Israel conducted a preemptive attack to destroy Iran's ability to collect nuclear fuel.....I think they would take his chain off. Deplomacy hasn't worked so the question is "who has the balls to make the first move" or should we?

(Again I'll guess) Romney will keep safely surrounded by other like mind people who may threaten to rattle sabers but in the end I would tend to believe it will take the UN to get us involved in another operation in the Mid East.

Iran is Europe's problem, and they - like everything else they touch - have messed that up rather good.    Should Israel make a run at Iran, they won't be doing it alone if Romney is president.   You can bet the farm on that one. 

[Kyle Ricky]

Iran is Europe's problem, and they - like everything else they touch - have messed that up rather good.    Should Israel make a run at Iran, they won't be doing it alone if Romney is president.   You can bet the farm on that one. 

There is no question that if Israel goes after Iran, we will be right there with them. As long as Mitt is President. If Obama is still Pres, we will be taking sides with Iran.

[rich_t]

When I started out in the forum I was nearly outright called a mole. So what do I know ? I don't know how the forum, or individual members react towards me. If I were to base it just on my reputation, it would be a wash. Maybe they'll warm up to me, maybe I'll wear on them, but I am me, like Shakespeare says, to thine own self be true. I love having a laugh. I'm quite irreverent, and I like to think I jostle people out of their comfort zones without them realizing it. I don't know if that answers your question, either way, ask me again in 1,000 posts, and we'll compare notes.

I'm not yet convinced that you aren't still a mole.