Come GWJ conservatives, we must chat

Couple of things that have come to mind:

--Even just looking at this thread and the things people are saying in it, It's Hard Out There On a Conservative. We're in a mess right now because big finance almost sunk the world economy. It's hard to find a sympathetic ear for criticism of things like welfare and government waste right now. It looks like homophobia is going to become as uncontroversially unacceptable among decent folk as racism. The debate surrounding women's issues consists of the...let's say very-much-not-liberal side looking very ugly. Before deciding that conservative voices are being silenced, consider that with the way things are right now and the specific character of the problems we're facing at the moment, *sane* conservative voices and sane liberal voices don't have much to disagree on when it comes to the big questions.

--Just post what you feel, and forget about scoring points for conservatism. Sometimes conservative posts come across more like a spambot found the thread than someone's posting a conservative opinion with how awkwardly a conservative opinion is shoehorned into a topic.

--If you're a conservative, you're going to run into a lot of flak, I agree. However, it's easy then as a conservative to conclude that it's *because* you're a conservative. I don't think that's it. I think that 'tone' is hostile to moderate opinions as well. Even just the wrong liberal opinions sometimes seem unacceptable. It's hard to talk about this because that means specifics, and that's getting personal or even setting off a dog-whistle (which I don't think is either appropriate or in the spirit of the CoC), but don't think that 'tone' I believe you gals & guys are talking about is off-putting to just conservatives.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Couple of things that have come to mind:

--Even just looking at this thread and the things people are saying in it, It's Hard Out There On a Conservative. We're in a mess right now because big finance almost sunk the world economy. It's hard to find a sympathetic ear for criticism of things like welfare and government waste right now. It looks like homophobia is going to become as uncontroversially unacceptable among decent folk as racism. The debate surrounding women's issues consists of the...let's say very-much-not-liberal side looking very ugly. Before deciding that conservative voices are being silenced, consider that with the way things are right now and the specific character of the problems we're facing at the moment, *sane* conservative voices and sane liberal voices don't have much to disagree on when it comes to the big questions.

--Just post what you feel, and forget about scoring points for conservatism. Sometimes conservative posts come across more like a spambot found the thread than someone's posting a conservative opinion with how awkwardly a conservative opinion is shoehorned into a topic.

--If you're a conservative, you're going to run into a lot of flak, I agree. However, it's easy then as a conservative to conclude that it's *because* you're a conservative. I don't think that's it. I think that 'tone' is hostile to moderate opinions as well. Even just the wrong liberal opinions sometimes seem unacceptable. It's hard to talk about this because that means specifics, and that's getting personal or even setting off a dog-whistle (which I don't think is either appropriate or in the spirit of the CoC), but don't think that 'tone' I believe you gals & guys are talking about is off-putting to just conservatives.

I'd like to address a few things if you will allow me CP.

First, I think there's a mistaken assumption that the elites who committed fraud and crashed the economy are all evil conservatives. It's easy to think that when you look at guys like Mitt Romney, but there is also a sizable contingent who basically back both sides because they want to control the system no matter who wins. And don't forget all the help the Democrats had in causing the financial crisis, from helping to repeal Glass Steagal to pushing the Community Reinvestment Act which helped spark the housing crisis. (I recognize Wall Street took the ball and ran with it, but the CRA allowed a lot of people who had no business owning a home get in way over their head.)

Another thing I'd like to at least bring up is the seemingly double standard on this board on what constitutes "whining" versus having a valid point. Often conservatives are accused of "whining" and "acting like victims" in threads like the Chik-Fil-A debate, but there are plenty of threads on this board from rape culture to white priviledge where liberal posters, at least from my perspective, engage in the same sort of behavior. I'm not sure you can have it both ways - either the conservatives have some legit points in their debates and aren't "whiners," or the liberals are equally playing the victim card and can get away with it because they're the majority.

jdzappa wrote:

Another thing I'd like to at least bring up is the seemingly double standard on this board on what constitutes "whining" versus having a valid point. Often conservatives are accused of "whining" and "acting like victims" in threads like the Chik-Fil-A debate, but there are plenty of threads on this board from rape culture to white priviledge where liberal posters, at least from my perspective, engage in the same sort of behavior. I'm not sure you can have it both ways - either the conservatives have some legit points in their debates and aren't "whiners," or the liberals are equally playing the victim card and can get away with it because they're the majority.

Christians saying they're victims because people don't like what they say is the same as rape victims saying they're victims because they were raped?

iaintgotnopants wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

Another thing I'd like to at least bring up is the seemingly double standard on this board on what constitutes "whining" versus having a valid point. Often conservatives are accused of "whining" and "acting like victims" in threads like the Chik-Fil-A debate, but there are plenty of threads on this board from rape culture to white priviledge where liberal posters, at least from my perspective, engage in the same sort of behavior. I'm not sure you can have it both ways - either the conservatives have some legit points in their debates and aren't "whiners," or the liberals are equally playing the victim card and can get away with it because they're the majority.

Christians saying they're victims because people don't like what they say is the same as rape victims saying they're victims because they were raped?

No, that's not what I'm saying. If you were raped, then yes you have every right to be angry. However, there are posters who then take the very real problem of rape to the extreme and begin to get into ridiculous arguments about Princess Leia slave costumes and patriachy.

jdzappa wrote:
iaintgotnopants wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

Another thing I'd like to at least bring up is the seemingly double standard on this board on what constitutes "whining" versus having a valid point. Often conservatives are accused of "whining" and "acting like victims" in threads like the Chik-Fil-A debate, but there are plenty of threads on this board from rape culture to white priviledge where liberal posters, at least from my perspective, engage in the same sort of behavior. I'm not sure you can have it both ways - either the conservatives have some legit points in their debates and aren't "whiners," or the liberals are equally playing the victim card and can get away with it because they're the majority.

Christians saying they're victims because people don't like what they say is the same as rape victims saying they're victims because they were raped?

No, that's not what I'm saying. If you were raped, then yes you have every right to be angry. However, there are posters who then take the very real problem of rape to the extreme and begin to get into ridiculous arguments about Princess Leia slave costumes and patriachy.

So anyone claiming to be a victim is on the same level? There can't be degrees?

jdzappa wrote:

No, that's not what I'm saying. If you were raped, then yes you have every right to be angry. However, there are posters who then take the very real problem of rape to the extreme and begin to get into ridiculous arguments about Princess Leia slave costumes and patriachy.

That's a relatively poor example, because this board's reaction to that was mixed at best, not some monolithic response.

I mean, if your point is "there are wannabe martyr idiots from every angle of any given argument" then... sure. I don't think anyone isn't aware of that.

jdzappa wrote:

I'd like to address a few things if you will allow me CP.

First, I think there's a mistaken assumption that the elites who committed fraud and crashed the economy are all evil conservatives. It's easy to think that when you look at guys like Mitt Romney, but there is also a sizable contingent who basically back both sides because they want to control the system no matter who wins. And don't forget all the help the Democrats had in causing the financial crisis, from helping to repeal Glass Steagal to pushing the Community Reinvestment Act which helped spark the housing crisis. (I recognize Wall Street took the ball and ran with it, but the CRA allowed a lot of people who had no business owning a home get in way over their head.)

Well, I have to dive into the particulars--the CRA didn't spark the housing crisis. That's just a lie told to conservatives. And a racist lie at that.

This is more about the general issue though (the lies about the CRA play into this as a good example, though). I'm not saying evil conservatives caused the crash. I'm even going beyond how the conservative ideas on deregulation--and the Democrats moving to the right (remember Clinton and the 90s Democrats were 'Third Way' Democrats: they also 'ended welfare as we knew it' a phrase that I've seen in things said by NixonOKAY I PROMISE I WILL STOP WITH THE PARTICULARS!)--contributed to this. I'm talking about the idea of where our problems are located. This wasn't some social welfare scheme gone wrong (it's predictable to see the propaganda on the issue around the CRA). All the things conservatives like to blame for our problems played no role in this latest collapse. Like you said, "a sizable contingent who basically back both sides because they want to control the system no matter who wins" but that's why I said "*sane* conservative voices and sane liberal voices don't have much to disagree on when it comes to the big questions."

Another thing I'd like to at least bring up is the seemingly double standard on this board on what constitutes "whining" versus having a valid point. Often conservatives are accused of "whining" and "acting like victims" in threads like the Chik-Fil-A debate, but there are plenty of threads on this board from rape culture to white privilege where liberal posters, at least from my perspective, engage in the same sort of behavior. I'm not sure you can have it both ways - either the conservatives have some legit points in their debates and aren't "whiners," or the liberals are equally playing the victim card and can get away with it because they're the majority.

Without getting too into who's right or wrong on all these issues (I have a feeling you and I would be on the opposite side of a lot of them, in fact), I have to agree with you in that too often P&C can feel more about boosting our own egos than about conversation and debate. That's why I brought up why it's not so much about it being a double standard as it is about a certain 'tone' that can be off-putting to anyone who wants to see an issue with any kind of nuance.

jdzappa wrote:

Often conservatives are accused of "whining" and "acting like victims" in threads like the Chik-Fil-A debate

Howdy. Just been watching here, but since I was one of two who voiced such a sentiment (and because I have a point here I'm curious to see the reaction to), I think it's perhaps best I chime in, if I may.

Seeing as I'm a thinking human being, I hope it's not assumed I call Whining on any conservative position, because it's easy for me to see the logic in many, even if I don't agree. But there has been a common, growing response to many social issues, often related to sexuality, the Chik-fil-a matter in particular, that attempts to cast the conservative voice as oppressed and victimized for supporting stances that, I'm sorry to say, oppress and victimize others--anecdotal example I mentioned in some thread at some point, a posting I saw on my Facebook feed about the LDS Church's official stance on same-sex marriage (spoiler, they're against), coupled with beseeching to "Please, please consider their point of view before passing judgement." Don't judge me for my judgmental attitudes? Just because I'm supporting hate groups is no reason to to say mean things like "You support hate groups?" It's a impolite to call it Whining, but I do because the complaint is so unjustified. Christianity is not a beaten down minority in the USA.

Again, it's hardly universal, but it's increasingly common, particularly out of people like Palin. To me, this seems like a bit of a shift. My perception in the past was that many of these conservative voices styled themselves (correctly or incorrectly) as plain-spoken tellers of truth in the John Wayne mold, folks who just told things like they were and made no bones about doing so. Since, surprise surprise 2008, that seems less so and less so. Am I wrong in any of this?

If you believe that the USA is a Christian country, founded on Christian ideals, then any opposition to putting Christian rules into law is an attack on Christianity, and Christians are the victims. No teacher-led prayer in school? Discrimination against Christians. Pastors can't recommend politicians from the pulpit? Discrimination. Schools teaching Darwin over God without an opt-out? Definitely persecution of Christian via indoctrination of children. Businesses fund groups attempting to legislate Christian morality? That's a virtue - attacking that is attacking free speech and, of course, Christians.

This is not sarcasm. It's a world-view. Just check your Facebook friends...

American Republicanism, where theocracy is a must. Where a christian nation and constitutional originalism are not at odds. Where education is a threat and ignorance a virtue. Reading leads to the devil, but God hates everyone but me. I mean God is love, except for all the things he hates. Where the bible tells me what to do, but I never read it.

I have taken on Churchill's attitude for this.

Winston Churchill wrote:

whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.

Thing is, conservatives didn't used to be whiny. You see it everywhere. Rush Limbaugh whines about how his calling Sandra Fluke a slut is being handled by the "lamestream media". You see it from the tone of someone like, indeed, Sarah Palin. You see it on message boards. What I find amusing about it is that Liberals have typically been called whiny. And, honestly, that opinion wasn't far off. During the height of political correctness you couldn't say something remotely non-PC (like using a male gender modifier on a profession that females also work in) without getting called a bigot. That was crazy and insane and liberals were being really whiny. And they were forcing a form of Orwellian Newspeak on the entire population through their complaining. I was in college during that and I had two takeaways.

#1 - I need to be more sensitive to survive this new world.

#2 - I really really dislike it.

So overall conservatives have a legitimate beef. The world shifted dramatically into a place where whiny liberals pushed political correctness on people who were, by and large, decent folks. I totally get why that rubbed them the wrong way. And I honestly feel like the entirety of the Bush presidency onwards feels like one giant social blowback.

That said, the pendulum has shifted in the other direction and now Conservatives are whining and frequently using Orwellian techniques to control the debate. I think the reason some of us see it as whiny and unbecoming is because it's familiar. It looks exactly like what Liberals did during the 90s. And as someone who jumped from "Team Liberal" to "Team Libertarian" in part because of that, I would suggest that Conservatives come back from the brink before they alienate more people than they already have.

edit: nevermind--it won't end well.

I've long held that political correctness applies to both sides, not just liberals. It's just really important for conservatives to avoid any suggestion of groupthink, so they pillory it while practicing it themselves. Both sides have their chosen language on issues - "death panels", "shared cultural background", "death tax", those are all politically correct language from the right.

Three posts from this last page:

Robear wrote:

If you believe that the USA is a Christian country, founded on Christian ideals, then any opposition to putting Christian rules into law is an attack on Christianity, and Christians are the victims. No teacher-led prayer in school? Discrimination against Christians. Pastors can't recommend politicians from the pulpit? Discrimination. Schools teaching Darwin over God without an opt-out? Definitely persecution of Christian via indoctrination of children. Businesses fund groups attempting to legislate Christian morality? That's a virtue - attacking that is attacking free speech and, of course, Christians.

This is not sarcasm. It's a world-view. Just check your Facebook friends...

KingGorilla wrote:

American Republicanism, where theocracy is a must. Where a christian nation and constitutional originalism are not at odds. Where education is a threat and ignorance a virtue. Reading leads to the devil, but God hates everyone but me. I mean God is love, except for all the things he hates. Where the bible tells me what to do, but I never read it.

I have taken on Churchill's attitude for this.

Winston Churchill wrote:

whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.

DSGamer wrote:

Thing is, conservatives didn't used to be whiny. You see it everywhere. Rush Limbaugh whines about how his calling Sandra Fluke a slut is being handled by the "lamestream media". You see it from the tone of someone like, indeed, Sarah Palin. You see it on message boards. What I find amusing about it is that Liberals have typically been called whiny. And, honestly, that opinion wasn't far off. During the height of political correctness you couldn't say something remotely non-PC (like using a male gender modifier on a profession that females also work in) without getting called a bigot. That was crazy and insane and liberals were being really whiny. And they were forcing a form of Orwellian Newspeak on the entire population through their complaining. I was in college during that and I had two takeaways.

#1 - I need to be more sensitive to survive this new world.

#2 - I really really dislike it.

So overall conservatives have a legitimate beef. The world shifted dramatically into a place where whiny liberals pushed political correctness on people who were, by and large, decent folks. I totally get why that rubbed them the wrong way. And I honestly feel like the entirety of the Bush presidency onwards feels like one giant social blowback.

That said, the pendulum has shifted in the other direction and now Conservatives are whining and frequently using Orwellian techniques to control the debate. I think the reason some of us see it as whiny and unbecoming is because it's familiar. It looks exactly like what Liberals did during the 90s. And as someone who jumped from "Team Liberal" to "Team Libertarian" in part because of that, I would suggest that Conservatives come back from the brink before they alienate more people than they already have.

jdzappa's original thread post wrote:

So I wanted to use this thread as a rallying point for conservative discussion. If you're a conservative, what issues matter the most to you? How do you feel about how the Republican candidates are representing you? And how do you feel we can work with our fellow liberal Americans to fix some of the nation's big problems?

Worst. Rallying point. Ever.

I heard a review of this book and it looks to be pretty in line with my thinking.

link

jdzappa wrote:

So I wanted to use this thread as a rallying point for conservative discussion. If you're a conservative, what issues matter the most to you? How do you feel about how the Republican candidates are representing you? And how do you feel we can work with our fellow liberal Americans to fix some of the nation's big problems?

The economy is the big specific issue that concerns me the most right now. I think almost everyone can agree that things could be much better in the US right now in terms of jobs and most people's financial standing. The other issue is a more nebulous one, and that's the general direction of the country. There is way too much shouting over one another from the sides and not enough real discussion and meeting in the middle.

I have always felt elections are a choice between the lesser of two evils. I don't trust 99% of the people in office. I have voted for both parties in past elections, although I will admit my recent record leans more to the Republican side. I never rule out a candidate strictly based on the party he/she is affiliated with. I am proud to be represented by Paul Ryan, who I feel is going about the business of Washington the right way and is really trying to do what is best for us as a country. I agree with a lot of what Scott Walker has accomplished, but there are some aspects that I wish had been executed differently. On the democrat side, I do like Tim Cullen and Tom Barrett.

In order to fix our problems and resolve our issues we need to stop shouting past each other. Generalizing entire groups of people based on the "crazy of the day" doesn't help resolve anything and alienates people who would normally be willing to listen with an open mind. If people really want to solve problems and live together in peace and happiness, then we all need to calm down and treat others with respect, even if we don't agree with them.

I know this process works, because it's worked for me here in P&C in the past. My stance on gay marriage was changed in large part to a topic discussed here a couple of years ago. For the most part it was a respectful and calm discussion. Had people called me a "hate-filled a$$hole" for my stance back then I would have fired back and probably left the discussion without ever thinking twice about the issue itself. I know I'm drifting off from the OT, but after years of lurking-posting-then back to lurking again in P&C, I'm pleading with everyone (myself included) to please try and be respectful and open-minded in here.

jdzappa wrote:

I'll admit upfront that I'm passionate (ok sometimes over-passionate) in my political beliefs.

However, I've recognized two things over the past few months. First, there doesn't seem to be many conservatives on GWJ. Secondly, I'll admit that I've seen some utterly fair criticism of the Republican extreme partisanship and Romney's antics in not being open during his election.

So I wanted to use this thread as a rallying point for conservative discussion. If you're a conservative, what issues matter the most to you? How do you feel about how the Republican candidates are representing you? And how do you feel we can work with our fellow liberal Americans to fix some of the nation's big problems?

I am conserative and a Republician.

In the last presidential election I barely wanted to vote, at best I felt McCain was too moderate for my taste and not really even a conserative. I found Obama to be very well spoken with an intelligent message and knew he was a near lock for the job. Now 4 years on he really hasnt surprised me much, I am neither up in arms against him nor do I think he has done a great job.

I kinda see Romney the same way I see McCain another moderate without a strong message or a clear vision on how to better the lives of Americans. I honestly dont care what the Dem's do at this point, I only care what my party is going to do to make America better, and so far....

I am not impressed.

I dont think there is much in the way of working with either side that can be done anymore. I really dont see the problem here as with politicans rather its with society. Politicans are many things but under the graft, greed, and whatever else they are reflections of the populace. They get elected based on our desires\fears\wants and for the most part they carry out what they were elected to do. (carry out that agenda) The problem is the populace is more than ever divided not on two sides but on thousands of sides.

As for what matters to me here is my top 5 things in no particual order

Getting folks back to work
Getting America back to making things instead of acting like we can all be bankers
Taking pride an honor in those who work with their hands again (trades)
Prevent child murder
Getting Uber big brother back to being just big brother (no patriot act, no spy drones over us, remove the nanny laws)

MattDaddy wrote:

The economy is the big specific issue that concerns me the most right now. I think almost everyone can agree that things could be much better in the US right now in terms of jobs and most people's financial standing. The other issue is a more nebulous one, and that's the general direction of the country. There is way too much shouting over one another from the sides and not enough real discussion and meeting in the middle.

I think I've mentioned this before, but I've had talks with my dad recently about how partisan everything in this country is becoming. He had actually said that sometime back he talked to his dad about that, and the triangulation he drew was that things haven't been like this since the time Nixon was in office, where everything seemed to boil down to if you were Republican or Democrat. So it gives me some hope that it's not a permanent shift, but I guess it's difficult for me to imagine that it's not somehow worse this time around.

It's definitely a sickness or poison that's subverting some of the everyday concepts this country was founded on. And, personally, I find it a little more worrisome that so many conservatives buy into it. It's a manufactured, group-mind driven concept - things that I thought many conservatives and Republicans found abhorrent.

I have always felt elections are a choice between the lesser of two evils. I don't trust 99% of the people in office. I have voted for both parties in past elections, although I will admit my recent record leans more to the Republican side. I never rule out a candidate strictly based on the party he/she is affiliated with.

Sometimes I think this country would do better at the polls if instead of having a party affiliation next to someone's name, there was a small summary of the candidate's position on certain items of the day. If I had my way, I wouldn't abolish political parties, but I'd do what I could to put their brand names second and their policies up front first. I think many (more) conservatives would grow disgusted with the Republican party when they had to see that so blatantly.

Probably the same for liberals and Democrats, but that's a side point.

I am proud to be represented by Paul Ryan, who I feel is going about the business of Washington the right way and is really trying to do what is best for us as a country. I agree with a lot of what Scott Walker has accomplished, but there are some aspects that I wish had been executed differently. On the democrat side, I do like Tim Cullen and Tom Barrett.

That's kind of interesting to me, because Scott Walker really seemed to be one of the poster children for the "ask no questions, lockstep the party line" sort of thinking that I (and apparently you) really dislike. What about him tips the balance in his favor for you?

Bloo Driver wrote:

I think I've mentioned this before, but I've had talks with my dad recently about how partisan everything in this country is becoming. He had actually said that sometime back he talked to his dad about that, and the triangulation he drew was that things haven't been like this since the time Nixon was in office, where everything seemed to boil down to if you were Republican or Democrat. So it gives me some hope that it's not a permanent shift, but I guess it's difficult for me to imagine that it's not somehow worse this time around.

Sad thing is its actually been worse in the past. In the 1850's members of congress started to carry knives and guns into the chambers because of disagreements. One member beat another with a cane on the floor of congress and other members sent him new canes in case he wanted to use them.

Bloo Driver wrote:

Sometimes I think this country would do better at the polls if instead of having a party affiliation next to someone's namethere was a small summary of the candidate's position on certain items of the day

You can thank Andrew Jackson, before his election what you describe was kinda how elections were ran.

mcdonis wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

I think I've mentioned this before, but I've had talks with my dad recently about how partisan everything in this country is becoming. He had actually said that sometime back he talked to his dad about that, and the triangulation he drew was that things haven't been like this since the time Nixon was in office, where everything seemed to boil down to if you were Republican or Democrat. So it gives me some hope that it's not a permanent shift, but I guess it's difficult for me to imagine that it's not somehow worse this time around.

Sad thing is its actually been worse in the past. In the 1850's members of congress started to carry knives and guns into the chambers because of disagreements. One member beat another with a cane on the floor of congress and other members sent him new canes in case he wanted to use them.

Bloo Driver wrote:

Sometimes I think this country would do better at the polls if instead of having a party affiliation next to someone's namethere was a small summary of the candidate's position on certain items of the day

You can thank Andrew Jackson, before his election what you describe was kinda how elections were ran.

Well, except that both parties owned their own newspapers, and attacked the opposing sides as vilely as anything out there today (particularly the Jefferson/Adams fights).

Tanglebones wrote:
mcdonis wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

I think I've mentioned this before, but I've had talks with my dad recently about how partisan everything in this country is becoming. He had actually said that sometime back he talked to his dad about that, and the triangulation he drew was that things haven't been like this since the time Nixon was in office, where everything seemed to boil down to if you were Republican or Democrat. So it gives me some hope that it's not a permanent shift, but I guess it's difficult for me to imagine that it's not somehow worse this time around.

Sad thing is its actually been worse in the past. In the 1850's members of congress started to carry knives and guns into the chambers because of disagreements. One member beat another with a cane on the floor of congress and other members sent him new canes in case he wanted to use them.

Bloo Driver wrote:

Sometimes I think this country would do better at the polls if instead of having a party affiliation next to someone's namethere was a small summary of the candidate's position on certain items of the day

You can thank Andrew Jackson, before his election what you describe was kinda how elections were ran.

Well, except that both parties owned their own newspapers, and attacked the opposing sides as vilely as anything out there today (particularly the Jefferson/Adams fights).

That is always a shocking read any time you see what they wrote back then about anothers character. They didnt exactly hold back with things they would accuse the other of. (all through proxie of course)

The only way conservative Republican economic policies work is with private sector debt creation.

This is because they want to either increase taxes or reduce benefits to middle and lower income people. They are also are against minimum wages. This reduces income to a huge consumer of products. The economy could only grow if we put our consumption then on the credit card.

We already went through this during the 90s and especially the Bush years. The housing bubble has killed many peoples credit. This is the reason for the recession and terrible recovery.

However if conservatives use some of their old policies like federal revenue sharing to states and local governments then the finances of all could be bettered.

Unfortunately from a political perspective this can only be done through federal deficit spending. The same thing both partisans harp each other about. Not realizing this is a symptom, not a cause, of the problems.

Capitalism requires some unemployment to work. This is obviously bad for the government. So we come full circle harping on each other to an end that won't work.

Bloo Driver wrote:

...Scott Walker really seemed to be one of the poster children for the "ask no questions, lockstep the party line" sort of thinking...

I disagree with that assessment of him. No one in the GOP ordered him to enact Act 10. The party line would have been the safer route for him, but he chose to go with what he thought needed to be done.

Without dragging this out and repeating things I've said in the other WI threads in the past, I'll give a personal example. Under the previous governor, my auto renewal went from $25 to $75 annually for each car. My property taxes went up 5%-10% annually. The insurance rules were changed to increase various minimum coverages that resulted in my auto insurance going up over $100 every 6 months even though I had no accidents or even a ticket. Since Walker became governor my property taxes stayed the same, and the increases in car insurance minimums have been rolled back. That's just an example, but it is a direct and noticeable change that I can relate to.

I am conserative and a Republician.

I'm an independent, socially liberal, fiscally conservative (in the old sense, I am reminded) and I agree with each point that you made in that post, McDonis. I really think that if the partisanship were toned down, the two parties could get back to working together like they used to. I feel that I've arrived at a sort of Eisenhower Republican stance and the GOP is waaay off in the distance somewhere. Heck, I feel more liberal than many of the *Democrats* at this point...

Maybe my political compass is just old.

Robear wrote:
I am conserative and a Republician.

I'm an independent, socially liberal, fiscally conservative (in the old sense, I am reminded) and I agree with each point that you made in that post, McDonis. I really think that if the partisanship were toned down, the two parties could get back to working together like they used to. I feel that I've arrived at a sort of Eisenhower Republican stance and the GOP is waaay off in the distance somewhere. Heck, I feel more liberal than many of the *Democrats* at this point...

Maybe my political compass is just old.

That's the thing - rhetoric aside, the rightward shift of the Republicans over the last two decades has shifted the 'center' somewhere over where the far right was during the 70's. Crazy leftist democrats today would be considered moderate Republicans by the standards of most of the 20th century.

Robear wrote:
I am conserative and a Republician.

I'm an independent, socially liberal, fiscally conservative (in the old sense, I am reminded) and I agree with each point that you made in that post, McDonis. I really think that if the partisanship were toned down, the two parties could get back to working together like they used to. I feel that I've arrived at a sort of Eisenhower Republican stance and the GOP is waaay off in the distance somewhere. Heck, I feel more liberal than many of the *Democrats* at this point...

Maybe my political compass is just old.

I think a lot of the GOP are actually normal folks and not from the same weird alternate universe Sarah Palin is from. What the GOP actually needs right now is someone who can communicate on the level of Obama or Reagan has steel in his backbone and has some sort of leverage on the country (National Hero, like an Eisenhower for instance). At the moment all we have are amateurs and silly characters not fit for a B movie script. Actually it reminds me a lot of the field the dems had in 2004, a whole lot of folks that really make the party look bad. Perhaps if we had a Reagan right now we would be able to work across party lines but I am not holding by breath on that ever happening again. I had hopes that the Tea Party would do for us what the Bull Moose party did to the party back nearly 100 years ago. Push real change to the party platform and force people away from tired ideas and embrace a bit of change. Instead we got some sort of reality TV version of a political party.

mcdonis wrote:

Prevent child murder

Is this high on your list because you or someone you know has been affected by it?

EDIT:

I ask because it's unlike the others and quite specific.

1Dgaf wrote:
mcdonis wrote:

Prevent child murder

Is this high on your list because you or someone you know has been affected by it?

EDIT:

I ask because it's unlike the others and quite specific.

I suspect it's code for "abortion"

You guys are being far too well-mannered and civil for what I wanted to talk about, the Conservatives on the tee-vee (and parts of the official Republican Party Platform, but that was last election so who knows).
But I've been wanting to find a group of those kind of conservatives so I can ask them why they are making a political platform/lifestyle out of being an asshole.
My passion and the arguments for such a statement have faded, however so it may take some time to respond/remember, feel free to come up with your own examples.

Also, tl;dr but you can have my gun, my ACLU & NOW membership cards, and my Princess Leia gold metal slave bikini when you pry them from my cold dead hands.

Farscry wrote:

I suspect it's code for "abortion"

That hadn't even crossed my mind - no sarcasm intended. If it is code for abortion - which it might not be - then haven't other threads discussed stats about good sex education leading to lower pregnancies?

I think we all have to temper our desire for means with ends.