What I was asking is how are Rudolph and the radical right different from more traditional hard line conservatives.
One thing is that mainstream conservatives are supporters of law and order. I can't give you the complete list for this individual because I don't know that much about him. Apparently he was not motivated by conservative ideology but by the death of his father.
He was anti abortion and anti gay......for many conservatives, those two issues are at the heart of their ideology.
Its clear that Bush has broken the mold for both Rep and Dem presidents of the past.
That isn't at all clear.
It is rare that an American president makes a pre-emptive strike against another nation. Do you have examples of ones that did?
What I was saying in terms of Reps. and a strong foreign policy is that they usually are proponents for a large and strong military; pushing for military action when there is trouble; encouraging a buildup in weapons, expanding our military presence in the world, playing hard ball with our enemies
You should drop the "pushing for military action" Democratic presidents have pushed for military action as often as Republicans.
Not nearly as often as Reps.
And "encouraging a buildup in weapons ", that really isn't true either unless you are talking about what you already mentioned under "proponents for a large and strong military".
Then, what you are suggesting is that it is true but you feel its the same issue mentioned twice. Am I correct?
Reps. say they are for smaller gov't but what it seems to translate into is a bigger military and less soft programs.
A large majority of government spending is for non military programs, if we spent nothing on the military real spending would still be up in recent years. As for "less soft programs", unfortunately this isn't true. The spending has increased every year even when adjusting for inflation and population growth.
When Reps. are in office, there is a tendency for gov't spending to shift from soft programs to military spending. Do you disagree with that statement?
Overall, gov't ends up being the same size, only redeployed to what they like. That's why their position is suspect.
Their position is just fine, what's suspect is too many Republican's commitment to it as almost every category of spending goes up year after year. But then its not like all the decisions are made by conservative Republicans. You might get a majority of conservative Republicans to vote for restraint on spending but probably not a majority of all Republicans and certainly not an overall majority of Congress or voters.
So then, you're saying that there is considerable inconsistency in ideology within the GOP party. Is that a correct statement?
That's right.....its just plain out bashing on my part. If that's all you get out of what I am saying...
That's all that I'm getting because that's all that you are giving. There could be more that you are not articulating but what you have actually done is push the idea that liberals and conservatives should be measured by the standards of liberals, and then when the don't measure up you say "see conservatives really are bad".
I say conservatives are bad when they are bad, not by some liberal standard but by standards established by the New Testament. The bible does not advocate war, not even as a last resort. The bible does not advocate discrimination of any sort. The bible does not encourage hypercritical comments against one's neighbor. The bible doesn't encourage condemning people to eternal hell.
Those are all things I have seen prominent conservatives do on a regular basis. Certainly, liberals are guilty of the same things but not to the degree of conservatives. I know you won't agree but that's the way it looks from my side of the keyboard.
If you want to do more then preach to the choir you are going to have to have more neutral and objective standards.
I think my standards are very fair.
To the extent that any of your standards have any validity (and most don't) you exaggerated the wrongs done by the conservatives and minimize those done by liberals.
Well, fukk you, Tim, I won't waste your time.
It has long been a national party with a sophisticated agenda.
Well, then, your standards are lower than mind.
In concept......but not in reality.
In both.
Sorry, the party barely was able to get 48% of the national vote in the 2000 presidential election after the Dems. had been shamed by Clinton committing adultery. Its possible Bush may make the GOP a true national party but to date, GOP candidates have gotten as many votes as they have only because the South has been one of the faster growing and more populous regions of the country.
Recent? Its been that way since the 60s when the Dixiecrats jumped ship, and now the South is the GOP's base. I don't consider that recent at all.
The GOP didn't solidify its control of the South until the 80s, in fact the Dems still had support there in to the 90s.
What are you talking about? Since the sixties the only time the Dem. party took a majority of the South in a presidential election was in 1976 when Carter, a favorite son from GA, ran. Even under Clinton and Gore, the only states to go to them were their home states of Arkansas and Tennessee.
The South has been Rep. since the 60s. Deal with it!
Your defense of liberal attacks as not being the same as conservative attacks boils down to the fact that you don't like conservative ideas.
That's not true and you know it. I am a strong proponent of fiscal responsibility; I was a strong proponent of welfare reform, and from what the conservatives on this thread have said, the GOP had a strong role in that development; I believe in a well armed military; I believe strongly that gov't should have the same accountability as corporations.......that's why I voted for a Rep. for mayor in LA; I believe firmly in the individual rights of people.
OK I'll modify the statement. You don't believe in a large part of the conservative agenda. You try to set your dislike of these ideas as somehow being different then conservative's dislike of liberal ideas. Your defense of liberal's attacks on conservative's amounts to the fact that you don't like the ideas they are attacking. You apply different standards for each party.
I don't like the parts of conservative idelogy that are less than humanistic.
ted |
