Are We There Yet? – Open Thread

Another Sunday, another good day for an open thread. A few days back I posited a query to all liberals seeing if they are finally at a point where they might be growing disenchanted with The One They Have All been Waiting For. Evidently, we aren’t there yet, because not one of them is ready to criticize anything about their benevolent leader. Hard to believe though considering that there is so much material for which to do so. Starting with the sequester scare, followed by Obama’s recent pledge of hundreds of millions to Syrians and Palestinians. Now how can cutting a few hundred million dollars from some government agencies result in having to shut down White House tours, and vaccinations for children, yet somehow we found the money to help Syrian refugees. You would think liberals and the media would question that.

I am also always amazed at the false perceptions so many liberals have of conservatives. A notion implanted in their minds by the educational system and the media. My effort going forward will be to dispel those notions. I have begun a personal dialogue with Mitch who is a little older than I first believed and has a better sense of humor than I would have given him credit for. I don’t know how much political common ground we have but that will be discovered in the weeks ahead. I do hope that we can just have civil conversations, regardless of our disagreements, and I am happy that that has been the case thus far. I think Mitch is surprised to learn that I am just a normal human being rather than the false notion of conservatives he has construed in his mind. I think if conservatives can begin to reeducate the numerous misinformed liberals that have bought into the medias and democrats false ideals of who we are, we can begin to bring back some semblance of normalcy and civility. I have told Mitch that we here at the blog would welcome more liberal posters who could articulate their positions rationally and without lashing out at some false notion, but that far too often, all we get are hyper emotional rants.

This entire country needs to learn how to dial down the rhetoric. Do I think that we are in a really bad place in terms of debt, spending, restriction of liberties, and the soon to be calamity of Obama care? Yes to all the above. But it will require determined, measured, and well articulated positions on the conservative approach to convince those who are ingrained with false ideals, rather than just name calling.

Advertisements

127 thoughts on “Are We There Yet? – Open Thread

  1. Cluster March 24, 2013 / 12:39 pm

    Major,

    I guess I forgot to include “rational” dialogue. It’s impossible to take you seriously when you use the term “we, ourselves”. Aside from that, single payer health care we only serve to accelerate the decline into bankruptcy and decimate the health care industry. Please learn from past failures, and please try and bring about some semblance of a personal identity.

    • Cluster March 24, 2013 / 12:55 pm

      France is a country with approx. one third of our population, and their system is going broke.

      http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-03/frances-health-care-system-is-going-broke

      In this country, when you have only 53% paying income taxes, and already $16 trillion in debt, there is simply not enough money, nor wide enough tax base to pay for single payer. In addition, you don’t lower costs by adding additional bureaucracies, and you don’t encourage the best talent to enter Into a profession by lowering pay. As a liberal, you should buy into the notion of choice. In order to reduce costs in health care, we need to offer the consumer choices. Choices in insurance plans, choices in doctors and choices in costs. You don’t do that through a one size fits all system.

    • neocon01 March 24, 2013 / 1:06 pm

      This entire country needs to learn how to dial down the rhetoric.

      like this?

      http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

      not mentioning union thug goons, nation of islam crazies, new black panthers calling for the murder of white babies……..and the white hut it’s self.

    • neocon01 March 24, 2013 / 1:16 pm

      tell the radical left to STOP LYING!!

    • neocon01 March 24, 2013 / 1:19 pm

      A 100% preventable LIFE STYLE disease…….

      HIV patients will spend $600K for lifetime care
      Those diagnosed with AIDS expected to live average of 24 years, study says

      aint OPM GRAND??
      FORE!!

      • bardolf2 March 24, 2013 / 3:59 pm

        Bartlett argues, however, that the semi-generic substitute may become popular among the thousands of people who currently control HIV with Atripla, with Quad reserved for those in need of an alternative. With so many drugs going off-patent, he predicts, “In ten years this will be a disease treated for $200 per year, or less”

        Yesterday’s prediction (actually 2006 but who is counting) isn’t today’s prediction or tomorrow’s reality.

      • neocon01 March 25, 2013 / 9:24 am

        Dr baldork

        AIDS is a 100% avoidable disease and is 99% homosexual and intravenous drug users. ANY cost to the taxpayers is too much!

      • bardolf2 March 25, 2013 / 10:34 am

        Neoapplebees

        Leading cause of death (medical care follows in $ terms except for suicide) AIDS doesn’t make the top 10

        Heart disease: 597,689
        Cancer: 574,743
        Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
        Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
        Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
        Alzheimer’s disease: 83,494
        Diabetes: 69,071
        Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
        Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
        Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364

        Take as an example type 2 diabetes which is largely preventable AND CURABLE. Overweight people like those in Florida prefer to continue throwing pizzas down their pie holes even after a diagnosis. Gay men are 1/2 as likely as straight men to be overweight and hence get type 2 diabetes so according to YOUR logic as taxpayers they shouldn’t have to pay the medicare costs for those overweight people with type 2 diabetes who refuse to go on a severe diet. PLUS diabetes is a much bigger killer than AIDS and is going UP in cost to the taxpayer while AIDS costs will be going DOWN.

      • neocon01 March 25, 2013 / 1:20 pm

        Dr baldork

        AIDS is 100% preventable……argue with the author who presented the costs until you PROVE otherwise I believe the article.

      • neocon01 March 25, 2013 / 1:32 pm

        Dr baldork

        Overweight people like those in Florida prefer to continue throwing pizzas down their pie holes even after a diagnosis.

        you must be thinking of all those bloated bleached northern tourists.

      • neocon01 March 25, 2013 / 1:44 pm

        Rove: GOP Candidate Could Back Gay Marriage in 2016

        Huckabee: Back Gay Marriage and We Quit GOP

        Im with Huck on this one.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) March 25, 2013 / 3:55 pm

        Adult onset diabetes (Type 2) is preventable in the case of one specific iteration; there are four different types of Type 2 diabetes, only one is result of being overweight.

        In the case of the other three; weight is a factor in treating the disease of two, and weight control is more problematic than blood sugar control in two of these as weight loss exacerbates the disease when not a contributing factor.

        Most often, weight is the FACTOR THAT LEADS TO THE DIAGNOSIS, not the factor that leads to the disease.

        None are curable.

        Since the cause of Type 2 diabetes is still largely unknown, then homosexual men are just as likely to contract the disease.

        AIDS is 100% preventable. Diabetes … not so much.

      • tiredoflibbs March 31, 2013 / 12:33 pm

        It seems mitchie has found a home at Hell’s newspaper, the Pitchfork, and the land of make believe.

        He always said he came here to have a civil discussion. At the fork, he referred to Palin as a “pregnancy faking c**t” – you know the usual dumbed down talking points about Palin, made for the mindless idiots that pass for voters on the left.

        Wow, some civil discussion that turned out o be. Mitchie just showed his true colors and everything he did here was a complete LIE.

        Of course, we already knew that. It just took a while for him revert to his true nature.

        Pathetic.

      • Amazona March 31, 2013 / 2:43 pm

        mitche has been begging Cluster to engage in private discussions with him, claiming to want civil discourse. I wonder how his foul-mouthed lying vitriol, vis-a-vis Sarah Palin, fits into this claim.

        Do you think he shows this face when trying to come across as a reasonable, rational, decent human being? I’m willing to bet he has enough self-awareness to realize that he has to hide his true self behind a mask of pretended decency, and can only let his true self out when in the company of equally degenerate and vicious haters.

        Thanks for the sleuthing, tired—good to know, in case mitche tries to, as he put it in a rare moment of honesty, “slither” back onto the blog.

    • neocon01 March 24, 2013 / 1:27 pm

      Mobster wisdom tells us never to bring a knife to a gun fight. But what does political wisdom say about bringing a gun to a knife fight?

      That’s exactly what Barack Obama said he would do to counter Republican attacks “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

    • dbschmidt March 24, 2013 / 2:08 pm

      Not to degrade this discussion but when MajorDomo Pain asks “How, exactly, would single payer health care in the United States accelerate the decline into bankruptcy for the average middle class American family? “ I have to wonder if he pays for his/her own insurance, and received the notice that the rates are going up between 50% and 115% this year thanks to the “Affordable Care Act” and the several tens of thousands of new regulations and taxes that are not finished being written as of yet?

      America was founded on liberty and a fair shot for everyone–not on the nanny state that Progressives have been shoveling down our throats since Wilson. Two things I would like to see within my short lifetime are a return to Constitutional law and a complete overhaul of Federal Government as intended within the Constitution including the actual original intent of the general welfare clause.

      Now explain to me how a doubling of my health care insurance (all that President Obama’s ACA was “insurance reform”) while I need to squeeze every nickel to make ends meet and still leaves an estimated 44 million uninsured has really helped America. Helped the Cloward and Piven strategy quite well–nothing much else. Well, it helped 6 of 10 doctors decide to retire early. Like a stock of a company gone out of business–it is only good for wallpaper in your bathroom. Insurance without doctors is worthless.

      I could, and might, continue with all of the other “wonderful” things this administration has given us like the practical shutdown of fishing off the East coast coming up soon, or the lack of a real energy plan–but I will leave that for another post.

      • Amazona March 24, 2013 / 4:17 pm

        “Two things I would like to see within my short lifetime are a return to Constitutional law and a complete overhaul of Federal Government as intended within the Constitution including the actual original intent of the general welfare clause.”

        And here you have distilled the essence of the Conservative Movement.

        Not any of the “social issues” that are personal in nature, or in the arena of state/local government, or both, but of GOVERNMENT.

        The reason the leaders of the Left constantly feed their mindless minions so much crap about “conservatives” without ever mentioning actual GOVERNMENT is because they own “issues” and they know this is where they can succeed, because “issues” are so personal and so easily manipulated.

        Unfortunately, the GOP has been suckered into sloping off after every “issue” the Left dangles in front of its sheeple.

        Why didn’t Mitt Romney respond to all of the efforts to distract and deflect, during the election,with the simple and oft-repeated statement “That has nothing to do with how we should govern the country. I am not running for the presidency to enforce morality or opinion, but because I think we need to “.. return to Constitutional law…” and completely “… overhaul of Federal Government as intended within the Constitution including the actual original intent of the general welfare clause” ?

        Why didn’t every single Republican candidate respond like this to every effort to lure them off into the weeds of “issues” instead of trying to address those “issues” ?

        The simple fact is, none of the “issues” are within the Constitutional boundaries of federal authority. The only thing we SHOULD ask our candidates is how they think the nation should be governed—according to the Constitutional model of a federal government strictly restrained as to size, scope and power, or the Leftist model of infinitely expanding and expansive federal size,scope and power. (And before the hysterical baying of “But there are more than two choices !!!” I will point out that there is only one choice on the Right—that of the Constitutional model—-and a wide range of choices along the Leftist spectrum, but once you want SOME expansion of federal size, scope and power beyond the 17 enumerated duties of the federal government you have crossed the line dividing Right and Left, and from that point on there is merely a question of “how FAR Left”?)

      • neocon01 March 25, 2013 / 9:29 am

        any sound familiar??

        The Communist Takeover Of
        America – 45 Declared Goals

        From Greg Swank

        15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

        17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

        18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

        19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

        26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

        27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”

        28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”

        29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

        http://rense.com/general32/americ.htm

  2. Cluster March 24, 2013 / 1:25 pm

    Major,

    You don’t need single payer to encourage healthy life styles. That’s a trend that already well in place. Besides, most healthcare costs for anyone comes in the latter stages of life. Dr Ben Carson has a much better idea – HSA’s from the moment we are born, tax free contributions, with the ability to pass those accounts on down to family. For the poor, the government can contribute to their accounts rather than giving that money to a bureaucracy. This gives people CHOICE. And when they might require very expensive health care near the end of their life, they get to decide whether to go thru with it, or pass hat money on to their kids.

    It’s a much, much, much better idea from a highly qualified Doctor who knows a hell of a lot more than Obama.

    • neocon01 March 24, 2013 / 1:32 pm

      Obama’s turnout pitch to Latinos: Get out there and punish your “enemies”

      fellow citizens THEIR ENEMY??????

      Well I guess if you are an America hating muslim born in Kenya, raised in Indonesia, mentored by radical hate filled communist racists in Hawaii, and promoted by terrorists, thugs, mobsters, racists, in chi cago.

      • neocon01 March 24, 2013 / 1:34 pm

        NOTE to moderator………
        ALL my posts have been in general or to cluster….NONE of them to the forkers…..

        🙂

        The idea is to not have posters refer to pitchfork posts because this keeps them on the blog even though their posts have been deleted. If you want the blog dominated by their hate and racism and bigotry and intolerance just say so. It was created to provide a forum for conservative thought and discourse, not as a dumping ground for hate and bigotry and personal attacks, and moderation has been an effort to eliminate these elements. It doesn’t matter who you are talking to if you are repeating what was said in a post that was deleted. Why is this so hard to understand? You keep those comments on the blog when you do this. Is it really that complicated? Do you remember us telling you all “Don’t feed the trolls?” And the next time you call moderators names because your posts were deleted, you will join the pitchfork crowd. Grow up. //Moderator

      • neocon01 March 24, 2013 / 1:54 pm

        Coming before the crowd one last time, Pilate declared Jesus innocent and washed his own hands in water to show he has no part in this condemnation. Nevertheless, Pilate handed Jesus over to be crucified in order to forestall a riot (Matthew 27:24-26) and ultimately to keep his job. The sentence written was “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.” Jesus carried his cross to the site of execution (assisted by Simon of Cyrene), called the place of the Skull, or “Golgotha” in Hebrew and in Latin “Calvary”. There he was crucified along with two criminals (John 19:17-22).

        Jesus agonized on the cross for six hours. During his last 3 hours on the cross, from noon to 3 p.m., darkness fell over the whole land.[7] With a loud cry, Jesus gave up his spirit. There was an earthquake, tombs broke open, and the curtain in the Temple was torn from top to bottom. The centurion on guard at the site of crucifixion declared, “Truly this was God’s Son!” (Matthew 27:45-54)

        Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin and secret follower of Jesus, who had not consented to his condemnation, goes to Pilate to request the body of Jesus (Luke 23:50-52). Another secret follower of Jesus and member of the Sanhedrin named Nicodemus brought about a hundred pound weight mixture of spices and helped wrap the body of Christ (John 19:39-40). Pilate asks confirmation from the centurion whether Jesus is dead (Mark 15:44). A soldier pierced the side of Jesus with a lance causing blood and water to flow out (John 19:34), and the centurion informs Pilate that Jesus is dead (Mark 15:45).

        Joseph of Arimathea took Jesus’ body, wrapped it in a clean linen shroud, and placed it in his own new tomb that had been carved in the rock (Matthew 27:59-60) in a garden near the site of crucifixion. Nicodemus (John 3:1) also brought 75 pounds of myrrh and aloes, and placed them in the linen with the body, in keeping with Jewish burial customs (John 19:39-40). They rolled a large rock over the entrance of the tomb (Matthew 27:60). Then they returned home and rested, because Shabbat had begun at sunset (Luke 23:54-56).

        On the third day, Sunday, which is now known as Easter Sunday (or Pascha), Jesus rose from the dead.

      • neocon01 March 25, 2013 / 9:15 am

        simply amazing….

    • dbschmidt March 24, 2013 / 2:21 pm

      Bronze plans are to cover at least 60 percent of costs; silver plans will cover 70 percent. Gold plans will cover 80 percent, and platinum plans will cover 90 percent of the costs. In each case, the remaining percentage is left to the insured to pay through deductibles, copayments and coinsurance.

      Assuming a medium-range regional cost factor, the premium for a 50-year-old policyholder — in a family of four, with a household income of $92,200 — could be $16,858, according to the subsidy calculator. But that family might also qualify for an $8,099 subsidy, leaving them to pay $8,759.

      Just for clarification, but I am sure the Progressives understand already–subsidy==OPM.
      So I can get a really crappy plan under Obamacare. Less coverage and fewer doctors for twice what I pay now and that is a “good thing?”

      http://www.factcheck.org/2013/03/obamacare-to-cost-20000-a-family/

      • neocon01 March 24, 2013 / 2:58 pm

        DB

        So I can get a really crappy plan under Obamacare. Less coverage and fewer doctors for twice what I pay now and that is a “good thing?

        i guess in cuba or NK.

      • neocon01 March 25, 2013 / 9:33 am

        NO leftist rhetoric here eh??

        Jim Carrey releases song for ‘heartless motherf***ers unwilling to bend for safety of our kids’…

        Gunowners have ‘very little in their body or soul worth protecting’…

        HEY JIMMY……….MOLON LABE!!!!

  3. Jeremiah March 24, 2013 / 1:49 pm

    How can it be possible that Obama is still in power when he has committed treason? Why is someone not seeking for his impeachment?

    • neocon01 March 24, 2013 / 1:59 pm

      Jer

      he is an illegal occupier, a self confessed criminal.
      Both kerry and Klintoon are traitors as well a al Ubama, but the useful idiots love them………go figure.

      PS
      the Germans loved hitler also.

  4. Retired Spook March 24, 2013 / 1:56 pm

    Excellent job of “dialing back the rhetoric”//sarc.

    If ever there was a great example of the Left’s cartoonish view of Conservatives, it’s the “cartoon” in Major’s post at 1:18PM,

    I have told Mitch that we here at the blog would welcome more liberal posters who could articulate their positions rationally and without lashing out at some false notion, but that far too often, all we get are hyper emotional rants.

    Sorry, Cluster; I love ya like a brother, but I’m waaaaaaaay past that point. Amazona and I have spent a good portion of the last 9 years attempting to engage Liberals in a civil, rational discussion based on the best way to govern the country. The vast majority of the Left’s positions ARE NOT RATIONAL. They are mostly based on “false notions”, which is why they have to engage in “hyper emotional rants”, and Mitch has contributed waaaaaay more than his share.

    If the uber-Left in America isn’t past the point of no return, they’re very close to it. It’s more than clear to me that they don’t want the same things I do. They intensely dislike America as it was founded, and our differences will NOT be reconciled by compromise. I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and served my country for 24 years to defend the rights of anyone and everyone to disagree with me, but that oath didn’t include protecting anyone’s right to fundamentally transform this country into something else.

    • neocon01 March 24, 2013 / 2:00 pm

      I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and served my country for 24 years to defend the rights of anyone and everyone to disagree with me, but that oath didn’t include protecting anyone’s right to fundamentally transform this country into something else.

      A BIG AMEN to that Brother!!!

      • neocon01 March 24, 2013 / 2:21 pm

        leftist rhetoric? WHAT leftist rhetoric??

        by Philip Hodges Filed
        The LA Times published an article recently on how America is at risk of another terrorist attack, but not from jihadists:

        “There are, in increasingly frightening numbers, cells of angry men in the United States preparing for combat with the U.S. government. They are usually heavily armed, blinded by an intractable hatred, often motivated by religious zeal. They’re not jihadists. They are white, right-wing Americans, nearly all with an obsessive attachment to guns, who may represent a greater danger to the lives of American civilians than international terrorists.”

        The image they chose to go along with their article was a picture of a group of white men protesting gun control legislation outside the Albany, New York capitol building and holding up signs championing the 2nd Amendment. If the international terrorists to which the article refers protested like these “angry, white men,” we’d have world peace.
        Of course, their main primary source for their fear-mongering was none other than the Southern Poverty Law Center.

        All you have to do to show up on their list of “hate groups” is be white and appeal to the U.S. Constitution as a source of authority. Then, all of a sudden, they lump you in with Timothy McVeigh and David Koresh.

        They claim that these “patriot” groups all believe in world government conspiracy theories. And for this reason, they all “bitterly cling to their guns and religion.” I don’t know of any group of people who bitterly clings to their guns more than our own government, namely Homeland Security. Perhaps they’re stockpiling guns, tanks and billions of rounds of ammo because of their beliefs in “patriot” conspiracy theories.

        They believe that all the angry, white men are planning to wage war against the U.S. government. It’s the “vast, right-wing conspiracy” that Hillary Clinton talked about.
        It’s OK to be a paranoid conspiracy theorist if you work for the government. If you’re a civilian, that’s all the probable cause the government needs to label you a potential domestic terrorist.

  5. bardolf2 March 24, 2013 / 4:05 pm

    ” I am also always amazed at the false perceptions so many liberals have of conservatives. A notion implanted in their minds by the educational system and the media. ” Clueless

    Read that a couple times and let the irony sink in.

    • Amazona March 24, 2013 / 4:20 pm

      Now you seem to be redefining “irony”.

      • bardolf2 March 24, 2013 / 6:07 pm

        I’m using the definition that Clueless would be familiar with.

  6. Amazona March 24, 2013 / 4:42 pm

    “I don’t know how much political common ground we have….”

    Has mitche told you what his political position IS? I have asked, many times, and have never gotten an answer, just some gobbeldygook defining “conservatives” according to radical Leftist prejudice devoid of actual political content. Every effort I have made to draw him out of his comfort zone of blind bigotry into an actual discussion on POLITICS has failed.

    I have to say, he has always struck me as a callow youth, fresh from getting a meaningless degree at a Leftist indoctrination center and eager to show off his acquisition of a few long words and the names of a few radical authors. Quoting Bill Maher as a source has certainly contributed to this perception as I have just described most of his audience. I’ve actually seen that as his only saving grace, as this level of complacence regarding ignorance and bigotry is so common among the smug but inexperienced.

    I have seen him defend Leftist economic theory but only by sneering at Supply Side economics and the free market. Have you managed to get any examples of the success of his preferred economic models?

    Just for a start, that is……………

    • mitchethekid March 24, 2013 / 6:36 pm

      There was some consideration for giving you another chance to post here but you came right back with the same hate, insults and vitriol we have come to expect from you. I guess you will have to limit your discussions to private ones. // Moderator
      .

  7. mitchethekid March 24, 2013 / 6:11 pm

    Thanks for mentioning our conversations Cluster. I appreciate it. I think that Amazona is correct in saying that social issues should not be the focus of any government, let alone one based upon conservative precepts. To take that statement to its logical conclusion, we all should be libertarian, as long as we do not devolve into anarchy. Unfortunately this is not the case. There are many, to many IMO, that are obsessed with social issues and use the government and it’s law making and law enforcing power to enact both restrictions and allowances. I am not a constitutional expert. I have a DAR manual that I look at from time to time but mostly for a point of clarification. I agree that it is a brilliantly written document and that the authors had enough forethought and enlightenment to be cognizant of the future. But it is also a product of it’s time, written by human beings who were every bit as complicated and flawed and brilliant and tragic as anyone living today. The essence of all words, as a conveyance of thinking, is metaphorical. (A word itself.) And as such, the words are subject to interpretation. An argument can be made that the “intent” that Amazona mentioned, is nothing more than learned guessing. (Emphasis on ned in learned.) One of the functions of the Supreme Court, is to interpret the meaning of the language that comprises the Constitution, by way of a shared consensus of opinion between a quorum of justices.
    But in a representative government, if a social issue is a concern, then it does become subject to legislation. This has been a fact throughout human history. We do not live in a vacuum (no pun intended towards those who doubt my aviator skills) and in 2013 there are over 300 million people who live in the US. In 1776 there were ~ 2.5 and were primarily agrarian.
    I think that conservative principals are the best choice where the issue(s) are economic in nature. But I do not disparage a degreed economist who happens to have a more fundamental understanding of the dynamics of a multi-trillion economy and how it interacts not only with those that have a dollar in their pocket, but now amongst the entire planet as well.
    As I see it, it is not the educational system that is to blame, or the inherent bias that all people and businesses possess that is the root of the problems conservatism is experiencing, it is the behavior, the claims and the reporting of it. A few examples exist on this blog alone. Retired Spook going on about transformation. Society, culture and politics are fluid, not static.Please provide some specific examples Retired Spook, of how our country is suffering from the progressive nature of time and the changing attitudes of the population. There are very few examples that my feeble brain can come up with that verify your conviction that an uber left even exists, let alone paint with such broad strokes this “intense dislike of how America was founded.” Just how was it founded? Not why, but how. And why do you stereotype? Not all “liberals” are America hating. In fact, most people desire a better America, not a worse one.
    Amazona’s use of inflammatory adjectives as a method of demeaning and undermining alternative points of view. And her obsession with spelling, grammar and punctuation. (I write the way I speak, commas substituting for pauses.)
    I won’t even address Neo. There isn’t a better representative for the fanatical, fringe extreme that gives conservatives a bad reputation than he. Conservatism isn’t the problem. It’s conservatives.
    I am a supporter of smaller government. I do not think excessive regulation(s) are a good thing. I think local control is superior to national but I also recognize the duplicity that currently exists on the right, how traditional conservatism has been eviscerated by a pandering to a certain type of uninformed and fearful individual and how tribalism has been exploited to further the monetary goals of others. This is the human condition. This is what Machiavelli often referred to and encouraged. I think that for conservatism to make a resurgence, it has to go through a metamorphosis. Unfortunately for those currently experiencing this change, it is a difficult process and it is perfectly understandable to want to blame those that don’t subscribe to the ideology, whom are not fixated with blaming the “media” or contemporary popular culture for their poor and declining image. There is a difference between cooperation and capitulation. This demarcation applies to all sides of the political grid. Self examination is a positive. A refusal to accept the need to change is not. And this applies to everyone on both a personal level and as a member of a group.
    OK. I think I will slither back into my hole now.

    • Amazona March 24, 2013 / 8:36 pm

      mitche, you approach objective reality and then your biases spook you and you skitter away. All of the Leftist buzzwords seem to have stuck to you, but in no coherent pattern.

      May I suggest a step back from the cliches and buzzwords to a very basic beginning?

      You say “I am a supporter of smaller government. I do not think excessive regulation(s) are a good thing. I think local control is superior to national ….” and then we see the skitter off into knee-jerk mouthing of Leftist platitudes. So let’s just stop there for a moment, without going off into your “…but….” comment which really has nothing to do with the first part of your comment.

      If you do believe in smaller government, and if you do believe that local control is superior to national (not to mention what is allowed by our Constitution) then you are well on your way to being a conservative. This IS the Right. The rest of your “…but…” veers away from the political and into the weeds of bias and perception and so on. So let that go, at least for now.

      You mention the Supreme Court and the idea of interpreting the intent of the Founders. I suggest that when there is a question of intent, one has to go into the contemporaneous writings of those people to see what they thought at the time, and how they may have expressed their intent in words or phrases slightly different from those they used in the foundational documents. I think this is a far better way to have an accurate assessment of their meaning and intent than to apply definitions of words which may have changed over the centuries, or become bogged down in archaic phraseology.

      When you do this, you find some very clear statements by the Founders, both those responsible for the actual writing of the documents and those who contributed ideas, such as Jefferson, who participated at a distance in the writing of the Constitution while he was ambassador to France.

      When there IS a significant cultural change that might make an original rule less relevant today, there is a process for changing it. But what we have seen is a willy-nilly and haphazard approach to this, which is to just ignore what is not deemed relevant today,rather than go through the process.

      I recommend to you the fine work by Thomas Sowell, “Conflict of Visions”. In it, he discusses the different world views that form our attraction to the two main political philosophies. One is what he calls the Constrained Vision, which is that mankind is inherently flawed and subject to error, and therefore process is crucial to mitigating the damage that can be done by powerful individuals, and the other is the Unconstrained Vision which is that there are some individuals who are just so darned special and wonderful and smart and wise we should endow them with great power and authority, rather than be constrained by process. The former demands spreading power and authority over many levels of government, with checks and balances and processes (such as amendments) which provide restraints on individual power, and the latter tends to find itself attracted to the idea of a ruling elite because of the power of personality or charisma.

    • Amazona March 24, 2013 / 8:55 pm

      The biggest change I can name in our nation is the shift from political discourse that used to be “This is the problem but we have different ideas of how best to solve it” to the current “If you don’t agree with my solution then you just have no interest in solving the problem”.

      This exhibits itself all the time. For example, instead of rational discussion on how best to address the very real problem of rising medical and health care costs, the debate has degenerated into the Left claiming, not that the Right’s approach is flawed according to its standards, but that the Right simply does not care if people suffer and die. This is not only vicious, it is damaging to the fabric of our nation. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with people on the best way to solve a problem, but it is corrosive and divisive and downright damaging to try to convince people that those who do not agree with you on a solution are heartless and indifferent to the suffering caused by the problem.

      It is this “Us vs Them” mentality that has developed so much that it now defines our political discourse. But demonizing the opposition instead of addressing opposition points of view has become entrenched in our system, so candidates now don’t debate on the real crux of their differences, they try to generate ways to demonize the other. A great example of this, aided and abetted by the Complicit Agenda Media, is the great Contraception hoax, which led to the great War On Women hoax.

      Contraception was never an issue in the campaign. The two conservative candidates, men of different religions, had different points of view on the subject, but both understood that these were private opinions related to their religious beliefs and not matters of state. But a “journalist” asked the Catholic candidate, knowing that he would have a personal belief that contraception is wrong, if he would support a state’s voting to make it illegal. The candidate took this as a question about states’ rights, and answered in that vein. But the Left took this response, which was completely correct and unrelated to a personal religious belief, and spun it into a claim that this candidate would try to ban contraception on a national level. Suddenly the nation was swamped with rhetoric about something that was never a part of the campaign, never part of the platform of the party, and furthermore not even something that would or could be a national issue—at least not if the Constitution were in play.

      None of this had anything to do with politics, with the real decision of how best to govern the nation, but was just an invention designed to create suspicion and dissent and divisiveness, to paint an entire POLITICAL movement with a broad brush of religious fanaticism. It was despicable, he more so because it was totally irrelevant to anything but stirring up anger and fear and resentment.

    • neocon01 March 25, 2013 / 9:13 am

      bmitch

      I won’t even address Neo.

      then you do………ROTFLMAO…….newbie forker

  8. M. Noonan March 24, 2013 / 6:15 pm

    Liberals, for the most part, can’t be rational – because “rational” implies actually thinking through one’s ideas and seeing how they fit in to reality. But thinking things through leads to the possibility of one discovering that he’s wrong and must change his views. Liberals, as such, can’t do this – those who do become libertarians or conservatives.

    • 02casper March 24, 2013 / 7:09 pm

      Mitch,
      Nice job. I would say that I agree with about 95% of what you said.

      Mark,
      If I were to state that

      “Conservatives, for the most part, can’t be rational – because “rational” implies actually thinking through one’s ideas and seeing how they fit in to reality. But thinking things through leads to the possibility of one discovering that he’s wrong and must change his views. conservatives, as such, can’t do this – those who do become libertarians or liberals.”

      You would be upset and rightfully so, because it isn’t true. Neither is your statement. I have spent a lot of time thinking through my ideas and how they fit with reality. My conclusions are different from yours because I’ve had different life experiences than you, not because they are wrong. I have three college degrees and I continue to take classes. I’m currently taking two classes on the history of New York City. I also plan on taking some of the classes on the Constitution offered by Hillsdale College this summer. One of the reasons that I continue to follow this blog is because it forces me to think about my positions and why I support them. If you want to have rational discussions with those you disagree with, you might want to give them the same respect you deserve.

      • Amazona March 24, 2013 / 9:06 pm

        casper, the main reason Liberals are seen as irrational is that you support a political system which has never,when fully implemented, been successful but in fact has led to economic misery, loss of liberty, onerous oppression, and often mass murder in efforts to retain power. When this is pointed out to you, you either deny it—without being able to provide proof of the system ever working—or you fall back on the Magical Thinking of “But THIS TIME it will be different”.

        It’s really hard to respect this approach to the most serious decisions voters can make—that is, how best to govern the nation.

        On the other hand, conservatives support a system which, when fully implemented, allowed a brash and crude young nation full of contentious individualists to leapfrog over the most established nations and cultures in the world, to become in less than a century a beacon of prosperity and innovation and freedom and opportunity that drew people from all over the world. This system PROVED itself, and only faltered when eroded by constant efforts to make it more like the always-failed system you and people like you support.

        On top of this, the “reasons” you (plural ‘you’) give for your political allegiance are never reasons of political analysis, but of emotion. You refuse to be drawn into analytical discussions of the merits and flaws of either system, but instead rely exclusively on platitudes and prejudices and a whole galaxy of FEELINGS.

      • M. Noonan March 24, 2013 / 9:09 pm

        Casper,

        There are two reasons such a statement would not upset me:

        1. Its an opinion – if opinions upset you, then the blogosphere isn’t the place to be.

        2. It isn’t true – untrue statements don’t upset me in the sense of offending me…they are annoying, to be sure, but as I’ve been dealing with liberals for nigh on to 30 years, I’m pretty thick skinned when dealing with untrue statements.

        As for your claim to think things through – I don’t believe it. There is nothing in your opinions which leads me to think that you’ve asked fundamental questions of your dogmas. Here’s a test:

        …what happened next gave rise to the great question of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, a question which has not yet been answered, if only because it has not yet seriously been asked. Was the rise of the radical intelligentsia desirable, was their unchecked progress necessary in order that mankind might be led to the broad uplands of democratic freedom? Or was the very concept of democratic freedom a blind alley, developed to make the world safe for an intelligentsia which is only happy when playing at politics, at no matter what cost in suffering to the multitude?

        That is a question posed in a book I have read – and having read it, I pondered it. And the answer is, “no”. But the basic claim to legitimacy of modern liberalism – the heirs to those called the “intelligentsia” of the late 19th and early 20th centuries – is that unless they had come along and taken control we would never had had freedom. That is a false belief – liberalism has warped and retarded freedom. In its best aspects it has merely provided a modern version of bread and circuses.

        Truth be told, there was more democracy and freedom under the old order (Catholic in theology, primarily agricultural in economics) than there has been since liberalism took hold in the late 18th century. America, itself, has become progressively less free and less democratic over the past 100 years as the shackles of socialism/crony capitalism have been riveted upon us: and these shackles have all been carefully made by liberals. Of course, it is worthwhile here to point out that voting doesn’t equal democracy; voting can be a part of democracy – and an important part – but democracy means the people rule their own lives as they see fit…whether that is under a republic or a monarchy. If the people don’t rule their own lives, then they don’t have democracy, even if they vote 6 out of 7 days a week.

        In a lot of ways the medieval serf was legally and socially better off than a middle class American citizen today. True, the serf couldn’t leave the land – but he also couldn’t be kicked off the land; his land was for life tenure in all places, and often with a right for his children to inherit. His land wasn’t taxed. He had to give a portion of his produce to his lord and another portion to the Church, but the percentage of his gross income which went to these things was far less than a middle class American gives in taxes today. There were the rude assemblies of the people where laws were discussed and agreed to – and the government was careful not to get too offensive lest the peasants rise in fury against them and start burning manors and massacring lords (can you imagine any of us having the guts to, say, burn down the governors house if he pisses us off?).

        There are many such things to think about and discuss – and come to conclusions about and to mold our opinions to meet the carefully considered facts. Have a go at it – and I wait patiently for you to one of these days write something which clearly shows careful consideration of the view you express.

      • 02casper March 24, 2013 / 9:48 pm

        “casper, the main reason Liberals are seen as irrational is that you support a political system which has never,when fully implemented, been successful but in fact has led to economic misery, loss of liberty, ”

        Except none of us are advocating what you say we are advocating. Part of the problem is that there are a number of conservatives who label anyone who disagrees with them as commies or socialists rather than debate the issues. I have never advocated big government. What I do want is good, effective government.

        “On the other hand, conservatives support a system which, when fully implemented, allowed a brash and crude young nation full of contentious individualists to leapfrog over the most established nations and cultures in the world, to become in less than a century a beacon of prosperity and innovation and freedom and opportunity that drew people from all over the world. This system PROVED itself, and only faltered when eroded by constant efforts to make it more like the always-failed system you and people like you support.”

        Again, no one is suggesting that we get rid of the present system. What most liberals support is that we adapt it to the twenty-first century. What worked best 150 years ago isn’t necessarily going to work the best today.

        “On top of this, the “reasons” you (plural ‘you’) give for your political allegiance are never reasons of political analysis, but of emotion. You refuse to be drawn into analytical discussions of the merits and flaws of either system, but instead rely exclusively on platitudes and prejudices and a whole galaxy of FEELINGS.”

        Interestingly, I and many other liberals see you (plural ‘you’) the same way. The right seems to be fueled more by anger and prejudices than looking at the the issues logically. Perhaps both sides need to step back and look at things differently.

        There is nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree. I have family, friends, and students that have have much different world viewpoints than I do and yet somehow we still get along.

      • tiredoflibbs March 24, 2013 / 10:02 pm

        ” I also plan on taking some of the classes on the Constitution offered by Hillsdale College this summer. ”

        I am afraid you are in for a surprise. I do hope that you will have an open mind towards these classes. They will shake your beliefs to the core.

        I have taken the free online courses on the Declaration of Independence and Constitution 101 – both were excellent!

        Good luck.

      • 02casper March 24, 2013 / 10:15 pm

        M. Noonan March 24, 2013 at 9:09 pm #

        “Casper,

        There are two reasons such a statement would not upset me:

        1. Its an opinion – if opinions upset you, then the blogosphere isn’t the place to be.”

        If opinions upset me I wouldn’t have hung around here for the last nine years.

        “2. It isn’t true – untrue statements don’t upset me in the sense of offending me…they are annoying, to be sure, but as I’ve been dealing with liberals for nigh on to 30 years, I’m pretty thick skinned when dealing with untrue statements”

        I’ve been dealing with conservatives my entire life (almost 60 years). Untrue statements are a part of life and a major part of the modern conservative movement (Obama isn’t an American, etc.)

        As for your test, I would have to read the entire book rather than a single quotation.

        “Truth be told, there was more democracy and freedom under the old order (Catholic in theology, primarily agricultural in economics) than there has been since liberalism took hold in the late 18th century. ”

        In what way?

        “America, itself, has become progressively less free and less democratic over the past 100 years as the shackles of socialism/crony capitalism have been riveted upon us: and these shackles have all been carefully made by liberals.”

        Your opinion, which I’m sure most people would disagree.

        “In a lot of ways the medieval serf was legally and socially better off than a middle class American citizen today. True, the serf couldn’t leave the land – but he also couldn’t be kicked off the land; his land was for life tenure in all places, and often with a right for his children to inherit. His land wasn’t taxed. He had to give a portion of his produce to his lord and another portion to the Church, but the percentage of his gross income which went to these things was far less than a middle class American gives in taxes today. There were the rude assemblies of the people where laws were discussed and agreed to – and the government was careful not to get too offensive lest the peasants rise in fury against them and start burning manors and massacring lords (can you imagine any of us having the guts to, say, burn down the governors house if he pisses us off?). ”

        If that’s the life you want to go back to then all I have to say is go for it. Personally, I’ll pass.

        I think you are a smart guy Mark, but you haven’t had a lot of formal education. You read a lot, but you only chose to read that which reinforces your viewpoint.

      • 02casper March 24, 2013 / 10:17 pm

        Tired,
        I look forward to the classes.

      • M. Noonan March 24, 2013 / 10:54 pm

        Casper,

        In other words, with three degrees under your belt, you never considered that question, huh?

        As for my education – taking my bookcase to my immediate left we have, The Guns of August, The First World War, The Last Battle, Bloodlands, The Collapse of the Third Republic, Hitler the War and the Pope, History of the Second World War, World War II, The Two Ocean War, In Mortal Combat, The Fall of Saigon, This Time We Win, Goodnight Saigon, Empire’s End, Shakespeare Collected Works, August 1914, Freedom, The Silmarillion, The Acts of King Arthur and His Noble Knights, Russia a History, Red Sun Setting, The Army of the Potomac, The Lord of the Rings, Unsinkable, The New Book by Ernie Pyle, The World Crisis, The Shadow of the Winter Palace, Maria Theresa, The Fall of the House of Hapsburg, A Diplomatic History of Europe, The Fate of Africa, War Through the Ages, The Spanish Civil War, The Great Mutiny, The Yom Kippur War, Israel a History, Goodbye Darkness, The Gulag Archipelago, The China White Paper, The Father of us All, Ripples of Battle, Intellectuals and Society, The Black Book of Communism, On Thermonuclear War, Europe’s Ghost, America Alone, The Conservative Mind, The Basic Works of Aristotle, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Castles of Steel, American Caesar, Daily Life in the World of Charlemagne, From Karl Marx to Jesus Christ, Goodbye Good Men, Uncommon Dissent, From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again, An Encyclopedia of Battles, The Rise and Fall of British India, Visions of Glory, Alone, Oxford Companion to the Bible, Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court, Oxford Companion to American Military History, William the Conqueror, Nicholas and Alexandra, Righteous Gentles, December 1941, Winchell, Trafalgar, Silent Coup, Edgard Allen Poe Selected Works, Decision, The Annals of Tacitus, Ivanhoe, Admiral of the Ocean Sea, Plutarch Selected Lives, The Rise of the West, A History of the Ancient World, A Noise of War, Caesar’s Legion, A War Like no Other, Medieval History, Henry II, Andrew Jackson, Stilwell and the American Experience in China, The History of the Confederacy, Richard III, The European Discovery of America, George Washington, A Compact History of the Revolutionary War, The Incredible War of 1812, The Diplomacy of Annexation, John C Calhoun, Battle Cry of Freedom, The Good Years, Shorter Cambridge Medieval History, Dreadnought, The Path Between the Seas, Coolidge, The Arms of Krupp, Blacklisted by History, Death of a President, The Imperial Cruise, Rendezvous With Destiny,…

        Want me to list the books in the case to the right?

        I stack my knowledge in matters of history and philosophy up against anyone who earned a doctorate in the past 40 years…

      • 02casper March 24, 2013 / 11:37 pm

        ” M. Noonan March 24, 2013 at 10:54 pm #

        Casper,

        In other words, with three degrees under your belt, you never considered that question, huh?”

        That’s not what I said. I said I would have to read the entire book before answering your question. You sometimes take things out of context.

        “As for my education – taking my bookcase to my immediate left we have,”

        I could give you a similar list and if I count the books I have in my classroom a much, much, longer one. I also have spent a lot of time accessing the Library of Congress, Franklinpapers.org, and dozens of other online sites.

        It should also be noted that there is a big difference between taking classes and reading books on your own. Taking a class with a good professor can force you to question or even defend your viewpoint, something that doesn’t always happen when reading on your own.

      • M. Noonan March 25, 2013 / 12:16 am

        Casper,

        I’m pretty sure its a matter of you never considering the question…but, that aside, I was just pointing out that my reading is rather wide ranging…and that, as I said, is only the books in the case to my left. And even if I listed the one’s to the right, it would still only bring me to the point of those I have room for in the actual book cases.

        As for a professor helping – that also runs the danger of just having someone propagandize…wouldn’t help at all to have someone feeding me a line of nonsense for an hour. Given what I hear from college graduates these days I’m figuring the ratio of nonsense to knowledge is 10 to 1 or so. There’s a reason I say over the last 40 years – because it was about 40 years ago that they started dumbing down college…someone who has a degree from 50 or 60 years ago will have a few legs up on me in some areas…but really we’d have to go back to someone who had to learn Latin and Greek to get bits of knowledge I’m entirely unaware of (and even there, I’ve read some things in translation; but as they say, things lose a bit in translation).

        My confidence in my knowledge is based these days by how entirely unsurprised I am. Pretty much as each issue comes up I already know what everyone on the left and most people on the right will say (Hanson, Sowell and a few others are fully capable of blowing me out of the water…). Additionally, nothing surprises me in the sense that I’ve usually figured it was going to happen as the chain of events ongoing is fairly predictable in its results…predictable, that is, to anyone who has studied pre-dumbing-down history.

        But, by all means, dig deep in to your knowledge and try to surprise me – tell me something I don’t know or come up with an opinion entirely unexpected. I assure you of absolute honesty – if its something I didn’t know, I’ll admit it…and if you come up with an opinion on any issue I don’t expect you to have, I will admit to being surprised.

      • 02casper March 25, 2013 / 8:58 am

        Mark,

        “As for a professor helping – that also runs the danger of just having someone propagandize…wouldn’t help at all to have someone feeding me a line of nonsense for an hour.”

        One of the things I look forward to in taking the Hillsdale course is that I expect to have someone propagandize. I’m not afraid of listening to another viewpoint and my beliefs challenged.

        “But, by all means, dig deep in to your knowledge and try to surprise me – tell me something I don’t know or come up with an opinion entirely unexpected. ”

        Did you know that one of the first experiments in socialism by a European happened on American soil long before we became a country?

      • tiredoflibbs March 25, 2013 / 9:16 am

        “Did you know that one of the first experiments in socialism by a European happened on American soil long before we became a country?”

        Yes, and it too failed. It has failed everywhere it has been tried and yet for some they still think it can succeed.

        Hopefully, your experience with Hillsdale will not be one you repeat here. You have a track record of ignoring all facts presented and continue to regurgitate your propaganda.

      • Retired Spook March 25, 2013 / 10:02 am

        I’m not afraid of listening to another viewpoint and my beliefs challenged.

        Casper,

        Seeing as how you’ve never been able to explain your beliefs, it doesn’t surprise me at all that you’re not afraid to have them challenged. How will you even know if they’re challenged?

      • M. Noonan March 25, 2013 / 8:10 pm

        Casper,

        Yes – though it can also depend on how one wishes to define “socialism” – whether it is pre- or post-Marx, that sort of thing. Even the Pilgrims arrived here with a socialistic idea – only to abandon it as unworkable.

      • Amazona March 27, 2013 / 10:01 am

        casper, you say: ” I have spent a lot of time thinking through my ideas and how they fit with reality. My conclusions are different from yours because I’ve had different life experiences than you, not because they are wrong. …”

        This kind of made my head spin for a moment. Are you saying that reality is subjective, depending on one’s “life experience”?

        Perhaps you can expound upon that.

        For example, what in your own “life experience” led you to state that if one wants a Supreme Court Justice who rules on how the Constitution is written and not on how it can be interpreted he will then be in favor of reinstating slavery and denying women the vote?

        Because this is the reality you expressed, and argued, in a thread on what conservatives want in their SCOTUS justices.

        What is it about your own “life experience” that tells you that the political system of the Left (which you do, after all, support) is
        (1.) Better than the Constitutional model
        (2.) More likely to lead to economic prosperity
        (3.) More likely to lead to increased personal liberty

        This would be a start in explaining how “life experience” affects one’s objective political philosophy.

        I’ve seen it work in the other direction—-I’ve known people from South America, one friend in particular, who have had personal experience with the savagery and brutality of Leftist movements in their countries, and this has formed an appreciation for our Constitutional political system. I am just curious about what “life experiences” would move one toward the Left.

      • Amazona March 27, 2013 / 10:09 am

        “One of the things I look forward to in taking the Hillsdale course is that I expect to have someone propagandize. I’m not afraid of listening to another viewpoint and my beliefs challenged. ”

        This is a fascinating statement—-an inadvertent admission, I think, that casper’s mind is so locked into his own twisted, Leftist, spin on the Constitution that not only would an objective analysis of it amount to “propaganda” in his opinion but that such an analysis would actually represent “another viewpoint” and “challenge” his “beliefs”.

        So why bother, cappy? If you have already defined Hillsdale’s highly regarded Constitutional courses as “propaganda”, and know in advance that an objective analysis and explanation of the Constitution will “challenge” your own “beliefs” then why waste the time?

        What I get from your comment is that you are willing to have information with which you already know you do not agree be thrown up against the impenetrable wall of your beliefs, knowing that they will have no effect.

        I notice you did not say you are willing to learn, or to have your current beliefs altered to accommodate new (to you) information–just that you will “listen” to the “propaganda”.

        Very impressive. How bold of you.

    • neocon01 March 25, 2013 / 9:20 am

      Mark

      the term “liberal” is a misnomer, it is marxist communism these useful idiots are pushing.

    • 02casper March 25, 2013 / 6:52 pm

      tiredoflibbs March 25, 2013 at 9:16 am #

      “Yes, and it too failed. It has failed everywhere it has been tried and yet for some they still think it can succeed.”

      Since seem to know about this perhaps you can tell us who made the attempt and why it failed.

      Spook,
      “Seeing as how you’ve never been able to explain your beliefs, it doesn’t surprise me at all that you’re not afraid to have them challenged. How will you even know if they’re challenged?”

      I’ve attempted to explain my beliefs on numerous occasions over the last 9 years. Usually, what I say is taken out of context, or attacked. At this point I would guess that you probably have a pretty good idea about what I believe in.

      • tiredoflibbs March 25, 2013 / 8:24 pm

        No cappy you are not going to get off that easy. You brought it up. You sound like you already know the answer when you posed the question.

        I called you “bluff” so to speak. It is time you “show your cards”.

        Enlighten us.

      • 02casper March 25, 2013 / 9:43 pm

        Tired,
        It’s no bluff. Just something I learned a couple of days ago in a book I’m reading for a class. Look up Pieter Corneliszoon Plockhoy. At least one historian has labeled him the father of Socialism. He attempted to set up a colony based on socialism on Delaware Bay in 1663. The colony was destroyed by the English within a year.

      • 02casper March 25, 2013 / 9:55 pm

        Tired,
        Not everything is a gotcha. Mark asked me to come up with something that he didn’t know. Since I just came across this a couple of days ago and found it interesting (at least to me) I thought I would pass it on.

      • tiredoflibbs March 25, 2013 / 10:06 pm

        Also, you may want to try the Puritan’s attempt to set up a Platonic Christian Socialism (1630s), which was based upon an combination of:
        1. Plato’s Republic
        2. a utopian interpretation of the New Testament
        3. a joint-stock agreement between colonial shareholders and the London-based John Peirce & Associates company
        4. a Continental European cultural attitude toward education
        5. an especially close economic and cultural bonds between Boston’s elite and the ruling class of England.

        During their first three years in the New World, the Puritans abolished private property and declared all land and produce to be owned in common (a commonwealth). Where they attempted this became known as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

        As a result, starvation was threatening the commonwealth. Governor William Bradford observed that the collectivist approach “was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.” He lamented the “vanity of that conceit of Plato’s . . . that the taking away of property and bringing community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God.” Governor Bradford implemented private ownership of property, but Platonic Christianity continued to dominate other aspects of regional social policy. The utopian aspirations caused religious and political divisions eventually brought about the witch trials, other religious persecutions by the Puritans against those who were not “pure enough” and even hostilities towards neighboring Indian tribes.

        An experiment in that was a failure in any case.

      • 02casper March 25, 2013 / 10:23 pm

        Tired,
        I was aware of the Puritans and their attempt at socialism. I’m also aware of their attempt at establishing a theocracy in their colony. Something else they failed at.

      • M. Noonan March 26, 2013 / 12:51 am

        Casper,

        Well, I will have to admit that I hadn’t heard particularly of Plockhoy – there were so many utopian communities established in the New World…wide open land free for the taking attracted people who believed they had figured out some perfect way to live. Whatever else may be said about the merits of his socialistic ideas, he sure had a bad sense of timing – trying to establish a Dutch colony on land claimed by England in the middle of the time frame of the Anglo-Dutch wars.

      • Amazona March 27, 2013 / 9:48 am

        casper, you mentioned an attempt to establish a theocracy, but it was kind of a hit-and-run comment. Why did you mention it?

  9. 02casper March 24, 2013 / 7:15 pm

    Cluster,
    I appreciate that you are Spook are at least trying to have conversations with people whose views you disagree with. I hope there is more of it.

    • neocon01 March 25, 2013 / 9:37 am

      leftist hypocrites…

      Bloomberg kicks off $12 million gun-control ad campaign…

      Gov’t has right to ‘infringe on your freedom’…

      FLASHBACK: Mayor’s guards get special permission to carry guns in Bermuda…

  10. Cluster March 25, 2013 / 9:05 am

    I think this thread is serving as a therapy session for all of us here at B4V – so good to see. I have just a couple of comments from the posts I have read.

    Casper – good to see that you are taking the Hillsdale course. I have been meaning to do that myself. Let us all know how it goes.

    Mitch – how can you have a low opinion of Thomas Sowell? The man is absolutely brilliant. You may disagree with his opinion, but that’s no reason to hold him on low regard. He is a very accomplished, very intelligent man.

    As Amazona repeatedly says, the conservative movement is about form of government rather than the issues du jour. if a constitutional government is properly in place, the social issues of the day will be in their proper context, and that is at the state level. This argument is not only being made by conservatives here, but on a national level as well, by Rand Paul, Rubio, Cruz, Walker, etc. Mitt Romney was also voicing this position during the campaign but the media and liberals were too hyper ventilated to listen. I just think that Democats and liberals need to quit down a bit, overcome their hyper emotional, irrational feelings towards conservatives, and just listen, much like we are doing right now. As I have said before, every state has some level of government healthcare, and some of them are actually pretty good. That is the proper purview of the state, and when administered locally, these programs can be quite effective. I support the program in my state and enjoy helping out my local Zonies. If any state wants to bring up gay marriage, that would be their perogative and the citizens of that state can then decide if that is right for them. I think attitudes are changing, but the proposal was recently voted in down in CA of all states.

    In regards to education – I caution people against thinking that a graduate from a highly credentialed institution is somehow “smarter”. I have an uncle that graduated summa cum laude from Stanford University, and yet has very little common sense. He currently has a decent consultant business going today, but his previous business venture failed miserably because of his inability to relate to people. I think Obama is an educated idiot – and I think most people know what I mean when I say that. I told Mitch that I would much prefer a president who has been banged up in life, failed a few times and got back up on their feet. Obama has lived off the public dole and the benevolence of powerful people with an agenda his entire life – that results in someone who really doesn’t understand people. Human nature has changed very little over time, and Reagan was an extremely effective President because he understood human nature and had a tremendous amount of common sense. Clinton was also someone who was banged up in life a bit, and has a lot of common sense – although he was personally destructive. In my book, understanding human nature and having common sense trumps a credentialed education any day of the week when it comes to leading people.

    Anyway, just my two cents. One cent, after taxes.

    • tiredoflibbs March 25, 2013 / 11:13 am

      Mitchie delusional as ever: “Even though I am smarter than most people.”

      And yet, you cannot grasp the REAL meaning of the word “vacuum”, the simple concept of flight mechanics, or simple reading comprehension.

      You paint all conservatives with a broad brush, with infinitesimal knowledge of what conservatism truly is. You come unglued when you cannot refute anything stated here and deteriorate into personal attacks, religious and racial bigotry, ageism and constant whining. Then you try to place the innocent hurt puppy who is simply misunderstood at his simple disagreement.

      The best move you made is to hang out at the pitchfork only to realize that the echo chamber and the land of make believe is not getting you the attention you think you deserve.

      Do not worry about Mitch. He was given a chance to engage in dialogue and chose to spend that chance on insults and avoidance of discussion. The decision to delete his posts stands. He has proved to have no interest in discussion but sees this blog as a place where he can insult conservatives. // Moderator

      • neocon01 March 25, 2013 / 2:13 pm

        ROTFLMAO……..

        And yet, you cannot grasp the REAL meaning of the word “vacuum”, the simple concept of flight mechanics, or simple reading comprehension.

        Or calling in air strikes AFTER the war had ended and NO American troops were there…………maybe he was also in Cambodia with the band aid bandit….

      • consigliereciucava March 25, 2013 / 4:04 pm

        You speak as if this is breaking news. The cover was done to market Andrew Sullivan’s excellent piece on President Obama’s evolution on the issue of gay marriage. For the record if he was gay i think he would have been very open about it and if he is bisexual then he is the best bisexual president in history and not very likely the first.

        The second part of your post has been deleted because of its bigoted stereotyping of conservatives. Do not come here under a different name and think you can post the same kind of stuff that got you banned under another one. // Moderator

      • neocon01 March 25, 2013 / 4:15 pm

        con

        more BS lies, but lies none the less.
        Rush hit the ball out of the park on that very subject today.

      • consigliereciucava March 25, 2013 / 4:45 pm

        Rush LOL

      • neocon01 March 25, 2013 / 4:47 pm

        the fork LOL

      • consigliereciucava March 25, 2013 / 4:55 pm

        More red meat for the base? This guy’s religious beliefs got him fired. No one goes to a catholic hospital looking to have an abortion do they?

      • consigliereciucava March 25, 2013 / 4:59 pm

        You managed to slip in some posts until it was determined you are part of the banned pitchfork contingent. //Moderator

      • neocon01 March 25, 2013 / 6:04 pm

        WOW

        Army Captain Demands DHS Give Up Their Weapons Of War
        Freedom Outpost ^ | Mar. 25, 2013 | Tim Brown

        Posted on Monday, March 25, 2013 1:21:08 PM by EXCH54FE

        Hestilow encouraged readers to “copy and properly amend this letter to send to your own senators and members of the U.S. House.”

        The following is his letter in its entirety.

        The Honorable Senator John Cornyn, State of Texas

        United States Senate

        517 Hart Senate Office Building

        Washington, D.C. 20510

        Re: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and that agencies preparation for war against citizens of the United States of America.

        Dear Senator Cornyn,

        It is with gravest concern that I write to you today concerning the recent appropriation of weapons by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that can only be understood as a bold threat of war by that agency, and the Obama administration, against the citizens of the United States of America. To date, DHS has been unwilling to provide to you, the elected representatives of the People, justification for recent purchases of almost 3,000 mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) armored personnel carriers, 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition (with associated weapons), and other weapons systems, when, in fact, the DHS has no war mission or war making authority within the limits of the United States of America.

        Significant is the fact that at the same time the Obama administration is arming his DHS for war within the limits of the United States against the People of the United States in accordance with his 2008 campaign speech claiming,

        “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve gotta (sic) have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded [as the United States military]“–Candidate Barack Obama, 2008.

        The Obama administration is deliberately defunding, overextending, and hollowing the Department of Defense; the only legitimate agency of the U.S. government with a war mission.

        This act of the Obama administration stands as a glaring threat of war against our nation’s citizens! This act of the Obama administration can only be understood as a tyrannical threat against the Constitution of the United States of America! If left unresolved, the peace loving citizens who have sworn to defend the United States Constitution “against all enemies, both foreign and domestic” are left no option except to prepare to defend themselves, and the U.S. Constitution, against this Administration’s “coup” against the People and the foundations of liberty fought for and defended for the past 238 years. We have no choice if we honor our oaths.

        http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/army-captain-demands-dhs-give-up-their-weapons-of-war/

      • neocon01 March 25, 2013 / 6:10 pm

        Then you now live under tyranny and not freedom.

        “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

        -Jefferson

      • Retired Spook March 25, 2013 / 7:53 pm

        Sowell gets it.

      • neocon01 March 25, 2013 / 8:10 pm

        Spook

        you bet he does.

      • watsonthethird March 25, 2013 / 11:55 pm

        dbschmidt said:

        First, and foremost–this great experiment is considered a republic–but I am sure that is what you meant. Nevertheless, Gay, or otherwise, marriage has been rejected every time it has become an issue that can be voted on by the people of the US–so you resort to the SCOTUS where nine people can force your so called “right”, or better yet “civil right”, down over 90% of the US populations throat.

        That’s just not true, db In the November 2012 elections, gay marriage won in all states in which it was on the ballot: Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington.

        Here, this may help:

        http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/the-marriage-plot-inside-this-years-epic-campaign-for-gay-equality/265865/

        It’s a long article, db, but I am sure you will want to educate yourself. One of my favorite quotes: “The campaign urged people to talk to each other about the meaning of marriage in their own lives and the principle of the Golden Rule.”

        That’s same Golden Rule that I posited here a few months ago was one of the fundamental principles worth teaching to our children–back when Cluster started a thread entitled “Teach The Principles,” hoping that other posters could add to his own list. Not a single conservative here at B4V could bring himself to agree. We got a bunch of snide comments about liberals, and this choice remark from Count d’Haricots: “How do I teach my daughter to do onto others when the biggest rewards go to those that ignore the Golden Rule the best?”

      • Cluster March 26, 2013 / 8:33 am

        Watson,

        Interesting that you would bring up the Golden Rule. Lets discuss that, shall we? In that the conservative position is for civil unions rather than the redefinition of the word “marriage”, it would seem to me that the insistence on that redefinition is nothing more than an attempt to offend millions of traditional people who cherish the centuries old institution of marriage which is recognized as one man, one woman in every single society in every single culture. In the determined to offend, one would be considered to breaking the golden rule. After all, you don’t want the minority of gays to be offended, right? Then why do you insist on offending another group, which is actually much larger?

        Remember it’s not a question of rights. It’s a question of the definition of a word.

      • neocon01 March 26, 2013 / 8:48 am

        read em and weep wapstooge………
        this tactic (9 justices) is what the left has used to shove their murderous filth down our throats for the last 50 years.
        in was a big night for same-sex marriage, with voters in four states voting in favor of the issue.

        The majority of previous statewide votes on the issue of marriage has sought to define marriage as between one man and one woman, effectively prohibiting same-sex marriage. Between 1998 and 2012, there were 31 votes in 30 states on this issue, and in all but one case, voters agreed to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. The single exception was in Arizona, where in 2006 voters rejected a same-sex marriage ban. However, Arizona voters went on to approve a ban in the 2008 election. In November 2012, Minnesota was the 31st state to consider a constitutional provision limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, and they rejected their proposed ban.

        FOUR STATES.yes…..31 NO

        Remember it’s not a question of rights. It’s a question of the definition of a word.
        see communist plan above

      • neocon01 March 26, 2013 / 8:59 am

        waspstooge

        That’s same Golden Rule that I posited here a few months ago was one of the fundamental principles worth teaching to our children

        we teach our children principles found in the bible.Bible. Gods LAWS, the 10 commandments, the so called golden rule is but a childish way of circumventing his word.
        We had 200 years of juris prudence, in EVERY STATE in the union against sodomy, abortion, drugs. In the 1960’s much of that has changed, AIDS hit the scene, VD is rampant, STD’s are now drug resistant, in some communities 70 % of all births are illegitimate, and we as a society have MURDERED 56 MILLION of our own citizens through abortion, T
        The innercitys are gang infested 3rd world hell holes where 50 people are shot on any given weekend in one city alone, unemployment is staggering, use of food stamps is staggering, welfare is staggering, disability claims are staggering …………yeah atheism , communism, OPM aint your utopia grand??

      • consigliereciucava March 25, 2013 / 9:17 pm

        You managed to slip in some posts until it was determined you are part of the banned pitchfork contingent. //Moderator

      • neocon01 March 25, 2013 / 4:46 pm

        Dr baldork??

        ‘Sodomy: We All Have to Pay’: Ann Coulter Uses Some Reverse Logic (and Gay Bathhouses) to Attack Bloomberg’s Proposals

        In making the point that cigarette smoke isn’t the only activity that impacts overall health care costs, Coulter noted that sodomy, gay bathhouses and AIDS are all issues that also raise the cost of medical care.

        Her point? If the government is going to go after smokers with the rationale that their activities impact the greater society, why not go after those who use gay bathhouses and, as a result, are at increased risk for health-related expenses?

        http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/25/sodomy-we-all-have-to-pay-ann-coulter-uses-some-reverse-logic-and-gay-bathhouses-to-attack-bloombergs-proposals/

      • dbschmidt March 25, 2013 / 10:46 pm

        With your comment about “The reason conservatives are losing elections is because people who say they are conservatives really do believe things like being gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgender disqualifies you from public service/civil rights/ personal freedom or any of the other benefits a great democracy can bestow because a few people feel their so called morals and religion are more important than what is actually right.” and in particular civil rights, and “great democracy” I feel a need to put things into perspective.

        First, and foremost–this great experiment is considered a republic–but I am sure that is what you meant. Nevertheless, Gay, or otherwise, marriage has been rejected every time it has become an issue that can be voted on by the people of the US–so you resort to the SCOTUS where nine people can force your so called “right”, or better yet “civil right”, down over 90% of the US populations throat.

        Personally, I really do not think it is the job of the government to decide social issues like this but I was wondering how you feel about (being nice here) the justices deciding for over 90% of Americans what we need to “believe?” Well, for now they did decide ObamaCare was a tax so what if they also decide every American needs to purchase and be trained in the use a firearms? You up for nine folks in robes deciding your life?

        I am not against the SCOTUS but somewhat against the cases they now hear.

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) March 26, 2013 / 8:49 am

        so what if they also decide every American needs to purchase and be trained in the use a firearms?

        Or — what if they decide that everyone who owns one or more firearms should PAY A TAX on each firearm?

      • neocon01 March 26, 2013 / 9:03 am

        what if they decide that everyone who owns one or more firearms should PAY A TAX on each firearm?

        Molon Labe!!!

        Molon labe
        The phrase molon labe means “Come and take”. It is a classical expression of defiance reportedly spoken by King Leonidas I in response to the Persian army’s demand that the Spartans surrender their weapons at the Battle of Thermopylae.

    • tiredoflibbs March 25, 2013 / 3:59 pm

      mitchie: “There is nothing from the Congressional Record of the 88th Congress to support that this was ever read into the record.”

      What is more laughable he received this little tidbit and relied on his new friends, aka the forkers, for his rebuttal. A drone goes to the echo chamber and regurgitates dumbed down talking points.

      Typical and pathetic, yet oh so predictable.

      We are not there yet. They will never “be there” since these mindless lemmings can’t think for themselves.

      • consigliereciucava March 25, 2013 / 4:06 pm

        Run a candidate for President and win and then we’ll talk. Maybe you can import some conservative voters from some other part of the world who would support your retrograde politics?

      • neocon01 March 25, 2013 / 4:13 pm

        con

        Maybe you can import some conservative voters from some other part of the world who would support your retrograde politics?

        Hey great idea….lets let in about ….say 30 million Mexican peasants……OH wait YOU lefties already did that ….drat!!

      • tiredoflibbs March 25, 2013 / 4:08 pm

        A little too quick on the send button.

        mitchie: “There is nothing from the Congressional Record of the 88th Congress to support that this was ever read into the record.”

        There is nothing DIGITIZED and available on the internet of the Congressional Record for that year. However, universities, federal libraries and other information houses have had their copies DIGITIZED and searchable. Too bad, these leftist drones rely on little white lies (there is nothing white about them, they are full blown lies) to make their point. You know like obAMATEUR states that “there are those in Washington in (insert anything here)” . Sure you can find people who believe or will assert anything in Washington to further their agenda.

        I can see why he flies off the handle when his dumb ASSertions are refuted time and again. It does get embarrassing, for him.

      • neocon01 March 25, 2013 / 4:11 pm

        Tired

        looks like we have a new forker TROLL

  11. GMB March 25, 2013 / 3:21 pm

    “Are We There Yet?”

    Let’s see here. $16.7 trillion in real debt. Depending on what source you want to believe, $60 to 200 trillion in unfunded debt and a gop that is so impotent that it is afraid to research the bonafides of a man who can not even prove he is eligible to hold the office of President.

    And you want to talk to bomberboy to find “common ground”

    I wish you all the luck in the world. Smart people will be going to local gun store for more ammo.

  12. Jeremiah March 25, 2013 / 9:19 pm

    Don’t know if this is appropriate to the thread or not, but this was on my mind a few minutes ago, thought I’d put it out there…for what it’s worth…

    In my opinion, in the last election, the base didn’t make it out to the voting precincts because the establishment wanted Mitt Romney, whom I’ve voted for, by the way, not because I really liked him, or anything…but he never provided a strong foundation on which to build. The base only makes it to the polls when they have someone they can trust to provide strong moral leadership, and are just trustworthy in general, to do the right things, even under pressure from the establishment to do otherwise.

    We have to have a strong foundation…someone who has not been wishy-washy on social issues, and of course, who stands for small federal government, and a true capitalist society, where corporations are regulated so that small businesses can be competitive in the market place…in other words, put food on the table. But God comes first, so he has to be strong on social issues, with a good record to show for it.

Comments are closed.