Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (657708)	11/5/2004 12:17:23 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Johannes, please act like an adult, or else withdraw. You claim that there was "no substance" to my post (reproduced below), and you claim to be "stomping on my head" (whatever the Hell that means), yet you haven't responded with ONE SINGLE WORD that addresses or comments upon what I posted: There seem to be three main branches to 'American conservatism' these days --- and they are often in conflict. (Parenthetically, adherents to each of these three factions can be identified in both major Parties.) * religious traditionalists ("social conservatives") * foreign policy hawks * opponents of big government ("Libertarians" & assorted other "fiscal conservatives", including many of the "western conservatives" swept to influence with Reagan) Bush currently seems popular with two of the above three, so I'll admit that the definition of 'conservative' seems fairly mutable these days, and he's as welcome to the label as anyone else. (Two out of three ain't so bad....) NOTE: for the 'fiscal conservatives' there are many who claim that title currently on the national stage but who are, in fact, strong supporters of a stronger, more AUTHORITARIAN government --- thus they propose merely 'shifting around the deck chairs of the Titantic', moving government spending from one area to another... while the over-all size and intrusiveness of the federal government continues it's inexorable growth. These people are, for the most part, hypocrites (or, somewhat more colorfully: 'pandering pond scum'). They seek the political benefits of professing 'conservative' ideals... while they work to increase either 'Big Daddy' or 'Big Mommy' government. DO YOU DISAGREE THAT THESE ARE THREE OF THE MAJOR, IDENTIFIABLE FACTONS IN MODERN AMERICAN 'CONSERVATISM', (AND, IF SO, WHY?)... OR DO YOU ARGUE THAT THERE ARE OTHER MAJOR FACTIONS WHICH I HAVE FAILED TO LIST? Arguably, the facts speak for themselves, and there is no denying that these identifiable philisophical factions exist. * religious traditionalists ("social conservatives") --- do you deny these exist????????? * foreign policy hawks --- do you deny these exist??????? * opponents of big government ("Libertarians" & assorted other "fiscal conservatives") --- do you deny these exist????????? As to my more extemporaneous comments --- that people who claim to support fiscal discipline and small government, but who merely wish to shift government spending from one area to another, while maintaining deficit financing and ever-higher government outlays are 'hypocites'... and that 'Bush is popular with two of the three factions identified above, but has less support from the fiscal discipline/Libertarian/smaller government crowd --- you may feel free to criticize these, but first please address the basis of my analysis: the three major factions.