Come GWJ conservatives, we must chat

Tanglebones wrote:
Wired wrote:

How the f*ck can some one come to a discussion labeled the conservatives war on women and expect to be heard?

To be fair, that thread is about a lot more than abortion.

That may be the case but if the question is why are there no dissenting or prominent conservative opinions expressed here regularly. That inflammatory style keeps many of us silent.

Wired wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Wired wrote:

How the f*ck can some one come to a discussion labeled the conservatives war on women and expect to be heard?

To be fair, that thread is about a lot more than abortion.

That may be the case but if the question is why are there no dissenting or prominent conservative opinions expressed here regularly. That inflammatory style keeps many of us silent.

Fair enough; I think there's always room to start a different thread on a similar subject with different language.

Tanglebones wrote:
Wired wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Wired wrote:

How the f*ck can some one come to a discussion labeled the conservatives war on women and expect to be heard?

To be fair, that thread is about a lot more than abortion.

That may be the case but if the question is why are there no dissenting or prominent conservative opinions expressed here regularly. That inflammatory style keeps many of us silent.

Fair enough; I think there's always room to start a different thread on a similar subject with different language.

Not just that thread check out the voter Id thread (an issue as a conservative I am undecided on) but you disagree with some posters boom you must be a racist. Here is a study showing that you are a racist. So because I may not agree yet or differ my view I dont post because I have better things to do then be called a racist or I hate women etc.

It is all over these boards hence why some of us read chime in from time to time but refrain from posting because no real debate or exchange of differing view points will happen.

Wired wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Wired wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Wired wrote:

How the f*ck can some one come to a discussion labeled the conservatives war on women and expect to be heard?

To be fair, that thread is about a lot more than abortion.

That may be the case but if the question is why are there no dissenting or prominent conservative opinions expressed here regularly. That inflammatory style keeps many of us silent.

Fair enough; I think there's always room to start a different thread on a similar subject with different language.

Not just that thread check out the voter Id thread (an issue as a conservative I am undecided on) but you disagree with some posters boom you must be a racist. Here is a study showing that you are a racist. So because I may not agree yet or differ my view I dont post because I have better things to do then be called a racist or I hate women etc.

It is all over these boards hence why some of us read chime in from time to time but refrain from posting because no real debate or exchange of differing view points will happen.

I don't want to rehash arguments from another thread in here, and I don't think I was one of the people calling anyone a racist; however, it's pretty clear, and has been stated by PA Republican officials that the voter ID is part of a program of suppressing the black vote in Philadelphia. Whether it's because the people are doing it *are* racist or just *act* racist is for mindreaders and biographers to figure out.

Edit: And I feel this comes back to one of the points of the thread - it's possible to be a conservative, but disagree with the stances and actions of the Republican party, much as party orthodoxy might tell one otherwise.

Wired wrote:

Funny that this popped up, I was thinking a lot about this today. I was at dinner with some family 2 nights ago and i was called a liberal by a relative (it was an insult from their mind btw) it struck me in a strange spot because I have never considered myself anything but conservative.

I believe in the sanctity of life, but acknowledge that it is not a black and white issue.
I believe that marriage is a human right not only for the strait people out there.
I believe that owe it to the poor, sick and disenfranchised to provide them a means to survive as well as means to help them better themselves.
But at the same time government waste is out of control and I hate that taxes go up and we are spending the money on the wrong things while people are hungry sick and dieing with no access to the help because we are afraid to spend money on them because some douche bag needed a better way to kill people.
I go to church every Sunday, and believe in a big dude in the sky, but at the same time Science is Science and facts are facts there is no reason they can not exist in the same brain.
I have been to the middle east, and I can tell you we have no right nor any need to be there. We never did.

There is no party that accurately represents anyone these days, anyone who walks a party line for either side has just resolved themselves to not thinking.

And this is why I love you!

Tanglebones wrote:
Wired wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Wired wrote:

How the f*ck can some one come to a discussion labeled the conservatives war on women and expect to be heard?

To be fair, that thread is about a lot more than abortion.

That may be the case but if the question is why are there no dissenting or prominent conservative opinions expressed here regularly. That inflammatory style keeps many of us silent.

Fair enough; I think there's always room to start a different thread on a similar subject with different language.

Except that the inconsistency of the "war on women" and reproductive rights (i.e. being against both abortion and sex ed) indicates that it isn't a product of "true" conservatism, but instead a result of the far religious right taking over the Republican party.

Wired wrote:

Not just that thread check out the voter Id thread (an issue as a conservative I am undecided on) but you disagree with some posters boom you must be a racist. Here is a study showing that you are a racist. So because I may not agree yet or differ my view I dont post because I have better things to do then be called a racist or I hate women etc.

It is all over these boards hence why some of us read chime in from time to time but refrain from posting because no real debate or exchange of differing view points will happen.

IMAGE(http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/files/pictures/picture-3268.jpg)

On those two issues specifically. Republicans are either hate-ful(women) or stupid (voting ID).

With respect to women's health issue, the republican stance is at direct odds with medical science as for what women need to live longer lives, have healthy children. I can only conclude that wanting women to live shorter lives comes from hate. The snake bit its own tail in Texas when republicans passed a coercive mandate to get HPV vaccines on all girls. It seems that cervical cancer is God's justice.

For voting ID, Republicans made up a problem to fix. They toked up and wanted to create a problem to solve, because our real problems require thought and effort.

Voting ID is much like our "war on Terrorism" we successfully fought off shoe bombers-that could bot possibly work, 2 stage liquid bombers- that could not possibly work. Yet, we have never trained TSA agents on what to do if they ever find a bomb on a person. There is no training in the TSA for what comes AFTER you find a bomb.

Wired wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Wired wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Wired wrote:

How the f*ck can some one come to a discussion labeled the conservatives war on women and expect to be heard?

To be fair, that thread is about a lot more than abortion.

That may be the case but if the question is why are there no dissenting or prominent conservative opinions expressed here regularly. That inflammatory style keeps many of us silent.

Fair enough; I think there's always room to start a different thread on a similar subject with different language.

Not just that thread check out the voter Id thread (an issue as a conservative I am undecided on) but you disagree with some posters boom you must be a racist. Here is a study showing that you are a racist. So because I may not agree yet or differ my view I dont post because I have better things to do then be called a racist or I hate women etc.

It is all over these boards hence why some of us read chime in from time to time but refrain from posting because no real debate or exchange of differing view points will happen.

Voter ID is a more complicated issue but I think it's very valid that the war on women thread should, at minimum, be called the Republican war and not conservative.

KingGorilla wrote:

Aside from Chris Christie, I am struggling to come up with any actual conservatives left in the Republican party in the public eye.

Huntsman? Of course, the party leaders seem to be doing their best to marginalize him.

On those two issues specifically. Republicans are either hate-ful(women) or stupid (voting ID).

But as what Wired said, you need to back off that generalization. I think what we mean to say is that the Republicans that are responsible for putting out that message and the ones who are repeating/propagating that message are the ones that are hateful and can't see the forest for the trees.

It is also entirely possible that some blue dog democrats are supporting or espousing these views.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Aside from Chris Christie, I am struggling to come up with any actual conservatives left in the Republican party in the public eye.

Huntsman? Of course, the party leaders seem to be doing their best to marginalize him.

I was going to say Lugar, but he was just primaried out of his seat.

Before this thread disappears completely up it's own arse on it's way past Cleveland and Mordor, I want to step back and ask a more basic question.

What part of being "Conservative" or "Republican" is driving the current focus on legislating social/moral values?

Old-school Roosevelt style, or the new Tea-partyness. Where does this come from?

I think that's a huge part of this disconnect. I have all sort of very "conservative" views about money and government. But my read of the Book says that we're supposed to keep City Hall out of all that other stuff.

I do like me some Huntsman. But he is a fantastic example of the problem with the Republican party. There is no room in a presidential primary for a man who knows the science of evolution and climate change.

I will throw Rick Snyder into this too. I was not a fan of his in the last election, but he will get my vote this November. I think his policies will go far to help bring business back to the state. But he has dared to put some more progressive changes in place, namely the controversial state appointed emergency financial managers for cities in crisis.

In light of the current topic of discussion, I'd like to bring up something from the front page that I think applies.

Final question - any suggestions for being a better poster in the Politics and Controversy mudpit? I'll own up to a few threads where I wasn't at my best, especially the rant I went on about the Stranger article. However, I also felt like times when the other side jumped to some pretty nasty conclusions. I'm fully willing to concede that maybe I need to be completely above the fray because of the many bats#t crazy ultra-conservative posters out there.

[This isn't directed at anyone in particular, just a general note that applies to all P&C posters]:
Cite your sources and explain why you think is/is not a problem. If you think some Congress-critter's legislative actions are illegal/unconstitutional, be ready to back that up. If you want to argue that a gov't program is full of fraud or freaking flawless, cite a study or at least have a couple of useful anecdotes.

This is where some of the bickering can get personal. I'll avoid specific examples, but if you keep trusting your gut reaction/opinion in the face of evidence that contradicts your stated reasoning, without anything to back up your view, people are going to assume you are not being forthright about your actual reasons. This is partially why I avoid posting some of my more... controversial views, I don't have enough data on-hand to defend them sufficiently. Exceptional claims requiring exceptional evidence and so forth.

Kraint wrote:
Final question - any suggestions for being a better poster in the Politics and Controversy mudpit? I'll own up to a few threads where I wasn't at my best, especially the rant I went on about the Stranger article. However, I also felt like times when the other side jumped to some pretty nasty conclusions. I'm fully willing to concede that maybe I need to be completely above the fray because of the many bats#t crazy ultra-conservative posters out there.

Cite your sources and explain why you think is/is not a problem. If you think some Congress-critter's legislative actions are illegal/unconstitutional, be ready to back that up. If you want to argue that a gov't program is full of fraud or freaking flawless, cite a study or at least have a couple of useful anecdotes.

But if all the people around here backed up what they think is unconstitutional with court cases or founding father's words, I would hardly ever post in here.

Not to derail, but coming from a left-leaning dude, I've enjoyed being able to read a thread where the conservative voices on GWJ can have a constructive discussion that doesn't require debating other parts of the spectrum. Kinda like the thread for atheism worked (more or less). Carry on, I just wanted to say I'm glad this thread exists and it's informative for me to read!

momgamer wrote:

Before this thread disappears completely up it's own arse on it's way past Cleveland and Mordor, I want to step back and ask a more basic question.

What part of being "Conservative" or "Republican" is driving the current focus on legislating social/moral values?

Old-school Roosevelt style, or the new Tea-partyness. Where does this come from?

I think that's a huge part of this disconnect. I have all sort of very "conservative" views about money and government. But my read of the Book says that we're supposed to keep City Hall out of all that other stuff.

Anger at the Hippies. There's a link in this post that leads to a short history of how it happened. Modern Republicanism has been described as a three-legged stool: social conservatives, defense hawks, and fiscal conservatives. Think of the anti-war movement of the 60s: it wasn't just anti-war, it was hostile to religion and other forms of 'values' social control, and it came during the time when people could talk about a "Great Society" without being laughed at.

Nixon and Buchanan created a coalition out of the people turned off by the chaos of the 60s. Reagan Democrats weren't conservative in their views about money and government--especially when it came to labor and unions--but they were aghast at the cultural conflicts of the 60s: think of the Hard Hat Riot where you've got construction workers beating up the Hippies, or how PJ O'Rourke once said that the Hippies were at the '68 Democratic convention to fight for the working class, only to learn that the working class had gotten jobs with the Chicago police and were now beating them up. Defense hawks and social conservatives found common ground in anti-communism:

IMAGE(http://i1094.photobucket.com/albums/i453/czpv/PP.jpg)

while in the 70s, liberal causes like forced busing gave us this image:

IMAGE(http://i1094.photobucket.com/albums/i453/czpv/FB.jpg)

Throw in the Dixiecrats and the split in the Democratic party over race, and it's Nixon-Buchanan-Reagan style. It's how the Republican party and the conservative movement resurrected itself following a period where the FDR/Kennedy style Democrats/'liberals' seemed like the future, and they did it by seizing on the way the country was ripped apart in the 60s. They harvested that anger and turned it into that three-legged stool of social conservatives/defense hawks/fiscal conservatives, and what you're seeing today in the Republican party is the bitter harvest of that kind of strategy.

That is a good synopsis. A large part did come out of FDR and more significantly JFK. A lot of Conservative Souther Democrats became Republicans after the Democratic Leadership more and more embraced the civil rights movement. Strom Thurmond is a nice figurehead for this.

He was re-elected senator for almost 50 years. And boy did he hate black folks.

David Duke is fun, but less damaging.

KingGorilla wrote:

And boy did he hate black folks.

Apparently except for the women.

Thanks KingGorilla. I guess one thing to add that I left out is that along the way, 'fiscal conservatism' became more and more ideological in that it became a social question of "taxes are slavery!" It became 'welfare queens and poverty pimps' and took on not just that social aspect, but a racialized social aspect. Especially as so much change came to the cities where a lot of Reagan Democrats lived before White Flight.

I'd also wonder about the connection between religious fundamentalism and constitutional fundamentalism. When I think of old-school conservatives, I think of people with lots of fancy degrees who wear boring suits and a political stance that valued learning and intelligence and looked down on the opinions of the masses. Once the right wing started attacking universities and professors as a 'liberal elite', I feel like we saw a slow slide towards, well, Sarah Palin and the idea that if you just READ THE CONSTITUTION you'll America By Heart and you don't need any fancy lawyerpriests to tell you what the sacred text means.

Speaking of coalitions, it's interesting to think of how much the relationship between evangelical Christians and Catholic Christians also changed during this time period. I don't think that's a coincidence. In fact, the members of the Supreme Court appointed by Republicans--aren't they all Catholic at this point?

So what we're seeing is an echo of the Protestant Reformation? Every man's interpretation of the Holy Writ is as valid as any others? Because that's really done *wonders* for Christianity...

Robear wrote:

So what we're seeing is an echo of the Protestant Reformation? Every man's interpretation of the Holy Writ is as valid as any others? Because that's really done *wonders* for Christianity...

Are you saying that the reformation in 1517 was a negative for Christianity?

On the whole, Wired? Yes. If you would like to argue against that, tell us which sect of the 30,000 or so that you follow and why we should consider that the definitive Christian viewpoint.

Robear wrote:

On the whole, Wired? Yes. If you would like to argue against that, tell us which sect of the 30,000 or so that you follow and why we should consider that the definitive Christian viewpoint. :-)

Where did I say that? I was asking for clarification on your statement.

But instead you snark and imply I am saying something I wasn't.

Never mind f*ck it i am out.

peace out

Robear wrote:

On the whole, Wired? Yes. If you would like to argue against that, tell us which sect of the 30,000 or so that you follow and why we should consider that the definitive Christian viewpoint. :-)

Not sure if you are just joking, but I'd say an institution that burned people at the stake for translating the Bible into the common language in a pure attempt to hold on the the power and corruption it afforded them was a bad thing, especially when they had twisted the method of salvation in said Book from a free gift to all, regardless of race, sex or nationality into a series of fundraising ploys and overcomplicated rules and regulations. As for figuring out which "sect" is right, just check the Book in question. You can easily procure one that has been translated, not just from the millions of copies created in the last two millennium, but have been checked and rechecked for authenticity in the original languages they were written in, with documents that are thousands of years old. Sure, you may still find that different people have differing opinions about areas in the text that are not entirely clear even when read in context, but God's redemptive plan is crystal clear. All have sinned. The penalty for sin is death. The gift of God is eternal life through the death of Christ, not through our own works.

...but that is probably a pretty hefty derail.

Wired wrote:

Not just that thread check out the voter Id thread (an issue as a conservative I am undecided on) but you disagree with some posters boom you must be a racist. Here is a study showing that you are a racist. So because I may not agree yet or differ my view I dont post because I have better things to do then be called a racist or I hate women etc.

I'm curious how you would explain the revelations of purposeful suppression of black voters that came out of the hot mess that is the lawsuit against James Greer, the former Chairman of the Florida Republican Party. The state released a series of depositions from that lawsuit today and one of the things that came up was that GOP was pushing to disenfranchise blacks back in 2009.

Tampa Bay Times[/url]]On voter suppression, Greer said he had just completed a December 2009 meeting with party general counsel Jason Gonzalez, political consultant Jim Rimes and Eric Eikenberg, Crist's chief of staff, when questions arose about fundraising.

"I was upset because the political consultants and staff were talking about voter suppression and keeping blacks from voting. It had been one of those days,'' he said.

Rimes said he recalls no discussion of suppressing votes at any meeting. Eikenberg did not return phone calls.

More broadly, my frustration comes from the massive and ever growing disconnect between what some Goodjers classify as being "conservative" and what the broader society currently defines as "conservative."

Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, and Goldwater are no longer the conservative standard bearers, nor they haven't been for decades. The conservative standard bearers in this era of FOX News are folks like Gingrich, Norquist, Palin, and Bachmann. They are the ones defining what it means to be a conservative or a member of the GOP these days. You might disagree, you might not like it, but they are driving the bus now.

I can understand how this disconnect might make you feel personally attacked in some threads, but those threads aren't really discussing your version of the conservative movement or the GOP. They are discussing the FOX News version.

Your version of conservatism isn't racist, but the current version? Yeah, it's kinda racist. Your version of conservatism respects individual choice, but the current version? It's all about telling women what they can and can't do with their own bodies. Your version of conservatism cares about the nation, but the current version? It would happily see the country burn if it meant scoring a political victory.

When threads like the voter ID or war on women are created they aren't done to castigate Goodjer conservatives. They're created to castigate FOX News conservatives. We could start every thread like that with a disclaimer that no disrespect is meant to Eisenhower-era conservatives, but the reality is that you guys have to accept that your version of conservatism doesn't really exist anymore. You are the last members of a soon-to-be extinct species.

If there's one thing this thread has shown is that many conservatives (at least conservatives here) feel like their views aren't being represented in their own political party. The question is whether there's a "silent majority" of conservatives throughout the country that feel the same way and want to take back their party or if the Tea Party is the future of the conservative movement and the Republican Party. Sadly, my money is on the crazies.

So wait, this thread was done in earnest and now again we have devolved into bashing?

I am really appalled that we liberals felt the need to come in here and slap a reality check down. This thread was created to further the discussion and it looks like we made it to 2 pages.

I apologize for my part in it and will go back to lurking.

Not the right place for this.

fangblackbone wrote:

So wait, this thread was done in earnest and now again we have devolved into bashing?

I am really appalled that we liberals felt the need to come in here and slap a reality check down. This thread was created to further the discussion and it looks like we made it to 2 pages.

I apologize for my part in it and will go back to lurking.

It's not smooth sailing, but I wouldn't say it's devolved yet. The conversation about how the Republicans and/or Conservatives got where they are is still going on. No need for a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I think we're at the point of realizing things like Santorum or the Tea Party are the classic 'an overnight success years in the making.' Like the question I was responding to asked when did being a conservative mean injecting religious morality into government, and for a great example we can go right back to a Catholic priest and the guy who would go on to found Focus On the Family being part of Reagan's Meese Commission on pornography. There wasn't some radical, sudden turn in conservatism--that commission was 25 years ago. This is the path it has been on for a while. It was less noticeable, maybe, but however sad it may be, there's nothing surprising about where it wound up.