U.S. Politics - a conservative, a conservative, my kingdom for a conservative

[TerraPrime]

Yup

[MinDonner]

:lol: at the thread title. Did you know they'd just (probably) found the bones of Richard III? All day long I've not been able to get the Monty Python sketch out of my head ("a shroe, a shroe, my dinkum for a shroe!")

[The Progressive]

Lol, awesome title!

[Elder Sister]

Why do you want one? What are you going to do to them?

<she asked suspiciously as she peered around looking for traps, pitfalls, etc.>

[Hereward]

:lol: at the thread title. Did you know they'd just (probably) found the bones of Richard III? All day long I've not been able to get the Monty Python sketch out of my head ("a shroe, a shroe, my dinkum for a shroe!")

I hope they make arrangements for a decent funeral. Imagine having to spend eternity in Leicester.

[MinDonner]

I hope they make arrangements for a decent funeral. Imagine having to spend eternity in Leicester.

A Lancaster always pays his debts. Not even the Reynes had it so harsh.

[awesome possum]

The left's policies are way more anti-minority, in my opinion. The Democrats want to keep brown & black skinned minorities as a permanent underclass dependant on the government, ie. a stable permanent Democratic voting block.

I believe this is called projection.

The conservative position is to give them opportunities to grow out of their underclass positions and to prosper.

Interesting. I'd love to hear them, as I'm not familiar with these opportunities. They wouldn't perhaps be similar to the "opportunities" presented in various GOP-held states via their restriction of voting rights that majorly affect poor minorities would it?

According to what I was reading, the current climate traces it's way back to the Gingrich takeover in 1992 which began as a sort of anti-DC invasion by the GOP and began an attitude of "We don't work with those other guys, they are the enemy" from both sides to varying degrees.

This is exactly it, and both sides are guilty. But it may just be my skewed perspective that sees Republicans not just feeling that way but making it part of their entire being. For example, Mitt Romney in an interview called Obama and people who support them his enemies. Outright. Not my opponent or the other side or anything like that. He called them his enemies.

A little closer to home, I think I've mentioned before that my in-laws are almost hardcore GOP supporters. The other day I got into a debate with one of them and all I did was merely destroy her talking points like the BS gutting of Medicare, the removal of the welfare work requirement, and pretty much everything Paul Ryan has said the last month or so. She was repeating these things verbatim as if they were gospel. When I kindly proved each one wrong - okay, maybe not kindly as I can be a bit of a condescending ass - she flipped out. I mean flipped out. She accused me of personally insulting her by insinuating that because she was passing off proven lies as fact that I somehow had implied she doesn't know how to take care of her granddaughter who she currently has custody of because the kids parents are fucktards.

She has since uninvited me and my wife from Thanksgiving at her house (a yearly tradition) and has informed my mother-in-law that she won't be coming over for Christmas if I'm going to be there. All because I pointed out how her argument has no basis in reality.

And up until this moment I had considered her among the more reasonable Republicans I knew, despite the fact that she proudly declares herself to anyone who will listen a Wiccan as well as a Reagan Republican.

This is the problem with today's GOP.

I'm Pro-Life (but absolutely against government telling women what to do with their bodies).

Actually, this means you're Pro-Choice. Pro-Choice does not mean Pro-Abortion. It means, whether or not you view the decision as right or wrong, you understand it's not your decision to make.

For me it was claiming the right to kill US Citizens without trial. If there is anything more unAmerican than that I do not know what it is.

When a US Citizen purposely joins up with a group dedicated to killing other US Citizens and bringing about the downfall of the United States, you kind of lose your right to protection under the Constitution.

On understanding "conservatives": They are 40% of the country. You can't "beat them down" by spouting off on how "fucking stupid" they are. The only choice, in elections and the wider public debate, is to understand the sources of disagreement, and then bridge it, resolve it, etc. Only 22% of the country is "liberal."

For someone so smart you often come across as incredibly naive in trying to ensure things are fair.

Democrats spent much of the last four years trying to bridge that gap by compromising, only to be met with continued obstruction. The debt ceiling is a great example. I'm going off memory here, but Republicans refused to even come to the negotiating table unless their (highly partisan, harmful) demands were met. So as that cliff was approaching Democrats and Obama said fine, you babies. And they capitulated. Only to then watch Boehner and Republicans walk away again by saying they didn't really want those highly partisan, harmful demands to be met, they wanted even more highly partisan, harmful demands to be met.

Why? Because they are so so very concerned about debt? No! Because they knew this would only further hurt the economy and an ailing economy is their only chance of beating Obama.

How are you supposed to bridge and resolve the source of disagreement when the source of disagreement is "fuck you guys, do what we say or we're not playing"?

[Seli]

@Raidne from the last thread which does not allow me to quote.

Terra was not lambasting all conservatives, only those that come into the discussions here simply repeating talking points (often ignoring facts). Which is a specific (if horribly large) group, not all conservatives.

There is the really weird situation that it is clear what policies are responsible for the US debt and deficit problem, it is clear who introduced those, there is a clear path to solving the problem. But a lot of the fiscal conservatives in these threads still vote for the GOP, just because they seem to like the lip-service that the party has to lowering deficit, while as far as I am aware there is no evidence in the last half century that they are actually willing and capable to take the steps that are needed.

And with the state and federal regulation, the question is what level of regulation is burdensome. But I don't know enough about the US system to say anything useful. Although it would make sense from a European perspective to have the federal government maintain the system of minimal regulation and have states in some situations, where they can argue their case add a level. But looking at the way you as a nation have implemented sales tax that is probably a pipe dream. (Oh and it really seems you have to update your unions to the 20th century, but that might be a tad difficult as well as long as people are not trying to reform but abolish)

[The Progressive]

When a US Citizen purposely joins up with a group dedicated to killing other US Citizens and bringing about the downfall of the United States, you kind of lose your right to protection under the Constitution.

Bingo!

I often don't agree much with awesome possum (and we really duke it out in the OWS threads), but when he's right he's right.

[Kalbear]

This is the problem with today's GOP.

no; this is a problem with humans. Humans don't like to be shown to be wrong. Humans don't react well to it. Humans conflate their opinions on things with themselves and an attack on one (which you admitted to doing) is an attack on others.

This isn't GOP. This isn't you being reasonable and them not. This is you beating up on someone else and them being upset with you.

Bingo!

I often don't agree much with awesome possum (and we really duke it out in the OWS threads), but when he's right he's right.

Lev, to play devil's advocate - last I checked the government does not have the right to remove your constitutional rights without due process. Regardless of what crimes you commit. Or are you advocating that simply hanging out with terrorist organizations such as the Brotherhood without Banners is now a tacit removal of your citizenship?

[awesome possum]

no; this is a problem with humans. Humans don't like to be shown to be wrong. Humans don't react well to it. Humans conflate their opinions on things with themselves and an attack on one (which you admitted to doing) is an attack on others.

This isn't GOP. This isn't you being reasonable and them not. This is you beating up on someone else and them being upset with you.

I didn't admit to attacking, I admitted to being a condescending ass while proving them completely and utterly wrong. I attacked nothing except the argument.

But you're right. Humans don't like to be shown to be wrong. Then something amazing happens. Many of them graduate from junior high school.

[Guest Raidne]

@Raidne from the last thread which does not allow me to quote.

Terra was not lambasting all conservatives, only those that come into the discussions here simply repeating talking points (often ignoring facts). Which is a specific (if horribly large) group, not all conservatives.

I might have thought that from the first paragraph, but reading all three, I disagree. He's free to clarify anytime, of course.

Kal:

How do you reconcile a person who is willing to support something you are 1-00% against because it gets them other things they like?

I posted this yesterday in the other thread. I am against killing American civilians without due process. If there are circumstances under which it is not possible to provide due process, or where a person can be said to no longer be a citizen, then other process should apply besides the full criminal judicial process, not no process. I am a pragmatist, but you can't play pragmatist with everything. If the President gets to make an exception and decide one person doesn't get due process, without articulating a rule, than nobody is safe from due process violations - the precedent has been set. You might care a lot more about this when a Republican is President and doesn't feel the need to respect the due process rights of citizens residing abroad.

Nevertheless, even though some day 100 years from now it is entirely possible that we will look back and say that this was the Presidency began the process of eroding the core rights of citizens of the Republic on the road to despotism, I will still vote for Obama. I don't think the United States economy could withstand another round of, as Bones said, take two tax cuts and call me in the morning. It's a moral dilemma to be sure, but immediate, present, known, very serious economic harm outweighs more distant, unknown, possible catastrophic abrogation of the rights of American citizens for me.

For a conservative, total economic collapse caused by unsustainable debt in the not-so-distant future is probably the motivator, and they likely figure that you have to have a country at all to argue about whether or not it should allow gay marriage. I don't agree with that position, but it's not any dumber on its face than mine.

(On its face = without digging into some data and economic theory)

I have to admit, I'm amazed that you've managed to make it this far without ever having voted for someone that holds any position that you are 100% against. Must be nice.

[Fez]

It shouldn't have gotten politicized at all, but since Mittens started it, I feel comfortable saying that he really fucked up over this LIbya thing. Even the House GOP isn't backing his criticism of Obama on this; which really tells you what a bad idea it was to do politically (not even getting into the morally wrong aspect).

I'm not alone in this opinion either:

"They were just trying to score a cheap news cycle hit based on the embassy statement and now it’s just completely blown up," said a very senior Republican foreign policy hand, who called the statement an "utter disaster" and a "Lehman moment"

Serves him right too, trying to score points off the death of Americans.

[lokisnow]

I saw Mitt Romney's statement on the Today Show this morning just a couple minutes before President Obama spoke. Firstly he insulted the President and undermined American standing and unity in face of a tragedy, which was dispicable enough, but politicizing the actions of the Libyan Mob is not really surprising from Romney.

No, what struck me was the look on Mitt Romney's face, I saw it only for instant before they cut back to Matt Lauer, but it was bone chilling. This is what this man looks like when Americans die. This is what this man would look like if he were leading our military. This is the look of a man who doesn't care.

See for yourself, and try not to shudder at the face Mitt Romney makes when Americans die.

[Guest Raidne]

When a US Citizen purposely joins up with a group dedicated to killing other US Citizens and bringing about the downfall of the United States, you kind of lose your right to protection under the Constitution.

For me, this is no different than Mitt deciding we should still require coverage of pre-existing conditions. It just dodges the hard question.

Who decides when you "joined" the group and whether your joining was "purposeful?" You seem to not even think "residing abroad" is a requirement. Can we missile strike people on US soil then, too? Who decides what is a "group dedicated to killing US citizens" and whether the "group" the citizen "joins" is part of that group or not?

Here, Anwar al-Aulaqi "spoke with" and "preached to" al-Qaeda members, including three of the 9/11 hijackers and Hasan, and the underwear bomber. We say he became a regional Al Qaeda commander in 2009. We authorized his killing in April 2010. Yemen tried and convicted him in absentia; we did not even bother. The legal standard we used was "imminent threat." By definition now, "imminent" means 1.5 years later, because that's how long it took us to kill him after we decided the treat he posed in April 2010 was "imminent."

I think publishing a rule stating when we can do this and when we can't and a trial in absentia with the evidence against him made public, or something similar, was minimally required.

You don't forfeit your life on the basis of one sentence of justification from the executive. Nothing else. That's not a good rule. Why is this not something that is immediately apparent to everyone?

[lokisnow]

link to an article where I found the picture:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/12/1130743/-Mitt-s-smirking-disaster

[Fez]

I saw Mitt Romney's statement on the Today Show this morning just a couple minutes before President Obama spoke. Firstly he insulted the President and undermined American standing and unity in face of a tragedy, which was dispicable enough, but politicizing the actions of the Libyan Mob is not really surprising from Romney.

No, what struck me was the look on Mitt Romney's face, I saw it only for instant before they cut back to Matt Lauer, but it was bone chilling. This is what this man looks like when Americans die. This is what this man would look like if he were leading our military. This is the look of a man who doesn't care.

See for yourself, and try not to shudder at the face Mitt Romney makes when Americans die.

And how about the look on his face when he walks away.

[Sci-2]

Haven't we been saying Romney has no beliefs save in that of his own advancement? That he's Smiler from Transmet?

[Guest Raidne]

So you guys are deeply concerned about Mitt Romney's facial expression over the death of one guy, but you don't care if Obama illegally kills people as long as it's only one guy?

[Kalbear]

I have to admit, I'm amazed that you've managed to make it this far without ever having voted for someone that holds any position that you are 100% against. Must be nice.

It is! It's great. The trick, raidne, is to not vote for that person It's crazy and wacky, I know! It's almost as if you have the power to not actually cast a vote if you don't want to and feel morally opposed to it.

I am fortunate to be able to live in a state where I am not forced at gunpoint to vote for one candidate or another. I often lament the rights denied to Michigan state residents who must vote for one president or another no matter what, and wish we could fix that. But apparently it's a state's rights issue.