senator franken is a go

[SultanOfSurreal]

We have a difference of opinion on that. I don't think is disillusion with conservatism so much as disillusion with President Bush. If President Obama, et. al., continue to push their agenda, it will be disillusion with President Obama that turns the tide back to conservatism. We can sort of see that happening with the polls that I posted about a month ago. We'll see.

bush was the logical conclusion of conservative policies starting with the reagan revolution. i would say these policies led inexorably to an economy fucked over by deregulation, and a heavy-handed foreign policy that could only have created worldwide backlash. today we are paying the price for 20 (natch, 30) years of the "moral majority" and the rest of the neoconservatives dictating public policy and discourse.

people weren't upset with bush the person, they were upset with what bush did. and what bush did was in keeping with the momentum of the conservative movement. he was only the conduit through which conservatism hung itself.

[Woodruff]

We have a difference of opinion on that. I don't think is disillusion with conservatism so much as disillusion with President Bush. If President Obama, et. al., continue to push their agenda, it will be disillusion with President Obama that turns the tide back to conservatism. We can sort of see that happening with the polls that I posted about a month ago. We'll see.

bush was the logical conclusion of conservative policies starting with the reagan revolution. i would say these policies led inexorably to an economy fucked over by deregulation, and a heavy-handed foreign policy that could only have created worldwide backlash. today we are paying the price for 20 (natch, 30) years of the "moral majority" and the rest of the neoconservatives dictating public policy and discourse.

people weren't upset with bush the person, they were upset with what bush did. and what bush did was in keeping with the momentum of the conservative movement. he was only the conduit through which conservatism hung itself.

Conservatism isn't about a TREMENDOUS LOT of things that Bush did. No...conservatism is NOT why people are upset with Bush.

[SultanOfSurreal]

We have a difference of opinion on that. I don't think is disillusion with conservatism so much as disillusion with President Bush. If President Obama, et. al., continue to push their agenda, it will be disillusion with President Obama that turns the tide back to conservatism. We can sort of see that happening with the polls that I posted about a month ago. We'll see.

bush was the logical conclusion of conservative policies starting with the reagan revolution. i would say these policies led inexorably to an economy fucked over by deregulation, and a heavy-handed foreign policy that could only have created worldwide backlash. today we are paying the price for 20 (natch, 30) years of the "moral majority" and the rest of the neoconservatives dictating public policy and discourse.

people weren't upset with bush the person, they were upset with what bush did. and what bush did was in keeping with the momentum of the conservative movement. he was only the conduit through which conservatism hung itself.

Conservatism isn't about a TREMENDOUS LOT of things that Bush did. No...conservatism is NOT why people are upset with Bush.

lol go ahead and keep telling yourself that, champ

[Snorri1234]

We have a difference of opinion on that. I don't think is disillusion with conservatism so much as disillusion with President Bush. If President Obama, et. al., continue to push their agenda, it will be disillusion with President Obama that turns the tide back to conservatism. We can sort of see that happening with the polls that I posted about a month ago. We'll see.

bush was the logical conclusion of conservative policies starting with the reagan revolution. i would say these policies led inexorably to an economy fucked over by deregulation, and a heavy-handed foreign policy that could only have created worldwide backlash. today we are paying the price for 20 (natch, 30) years of the "moral majority" and the rest of the neoconservatives dictating public policy and discourse.

people weren't upset with bush the person, they were upset with what bush did. and what bush did was in keeping with the momentum of the conservative movement. he was only the conduit through which conservatism hung itself.

Conservatism isn't about a TREMENDOUS LOT of things that Bush did. No...conservatism is NOT why people are upset with Bush.

"OMG NOT TRUE CONSERVATISM"-comments aside, what Bush did was entirely in keeping with the Republican philosophy and by extension the conservative movement.

[Woodruff]

We have a difference of opinion on that. I don't think is disillusion with conservatism so much as disillusion with President Bush. If President Obama, et. al., continue to push their agenda, it will be disillusion with President Obama that turns the tide back to conservatism. We can sort of see that happening with the polls that I posted about a month ago. We'll see.

bush was the logical conclusion of conservative policies starting with the reagan revolution. i would say these policies led inexorably to an economy fucked over by deregulation, and a heavy-handed foreign policy that could only have created worldwide backlash. today we are paying the price for 20 (natch, 30) years of the "moral majority" and the rest of the neoconservatives dictating public policy and discourse.

people weren't upset with bush the person, they were upset with what bush did. and what bush did was in keeping with the momentum of the conservative movement. he was only the conduit through which conservatism hung itself.

Conservatism isn't about a TREMENDOUS LOT of things that Bush did. No...conservatism is NOT why people are upset with Bush.

lol go ahead and keep telling yourself that, champ

I didn't realize that conservatism was about gutting the benefits afforded to military personnel as well as retired military personnel...when did conservatives start championing that?

I didn't realize that conservatism was about invading other nations for no significant reason...when did conservatives start championing that?

The fact of the matter is that neither of those things has any relation to conservatism. They have to do with current Republicanism, yes...but that certainly is not conservatism. You simply hate conservatives so much that you want to pin as much as you can on them. You should step back and look at things a bit more clearly.

[Woodruff]

We have a difference of opinion on that. I don't think is disillusion with conservatism so much as disillusion with President Bush. If President Obama, et. al., continue to push their agenda, it will be disillusion with President Obama that turns the tide back to conservatism. We can sort of see that happening with the polls that I posted about a month ago. We'll see.

bush was the logical conclusion of conservative policies starting with the reagan revolution. i would say these policies led inexorably to an economy fucked over by deregulation, and a heavy-handed foreign policy that could only have created worldwide backlash. today we are paying the price for 20 (natch, 30) years of the "moral majority" and the rest of the neoconservatives dictating public policy and discourse.

people weren't upset with bush the person, they were upset with what bush did. and what bush did was in keeping with the momentum of the conservative movement. he was only the conduit through which conservatism hung itself.

Conservatism isn't about a TREMENDOUS LOT of things that Bush did. No...conservatism is NOT why people are upset with Bush.

"OMG NOT TRUE CONSERVATISM"-comments aside, what Bush did was entirely in keeping with the Republican philosophy and by extension the conservative movement.

So then what you're saying is..."I want to re-define conservatism to mean whatever I want it to mean"...sorry, but that's not how things work. The fact is that most of what Bush did was Republicanism, not conservatism. To equate Republican philosophy with conservative philosophy is dishonest, at best.

[SultanOfSurreal]

We have a difference of opinion on that. I don't think is disillusion with conservatism so much as disillusion with President Bush. If President Obama, et. al., continue to push their agenda, it will be disillusion with President Obama that turns the tide back to conservatism. We can sort of see that happening with the polls that I posted about a month ago. We'll see.

bush was the logical conclusion of conservative policies starting with the reagan revolution. i would say these policies led inexorably to an economy fucked over by deregulation, and a heavy-handed foreign policy that could only have created worldwide backlash. today we are paying the price for 20 (natch, 30) years of the "moral majority" and the rest of the neoconservatives dictating public policy and discourse.

people weren't upset with bush the person, they were upset with what bush did. and what bush did was in keeping with the momentum of the conservative movement. he was only the conduit through which conservatism hung itself.

Conservatism isn't about a TREMENDOUS LOT of things that Bush did. No...conservatism is NOT why people are upset with Bush.

lol go ahead and keep telling yourself that, champ

I didn't realize that conservatism was about gutting the benefits afforded to military personnel as well as retired military personnel...when did conservatives start championing that?

I didn't realize that conservatism was about invading other nations for no significant reason...when did conservatives start championing that?

The fact of the matter is that neither of those things has any relation to conservatism. They have to do with current Republicanism, yes...but that certainly is not conservatism. You simply hate conservatives so much that you want to pin as much as you can on them. You should step back and look at things a bit more clearly.

yeah and no true scotsman would be a sex offender

[Snorri1234]

We have a difference of opinion on that. I don't think is disillusion with conservatism so much as disillusion with President Bush. If President Obama, et. al., continue to push their agenda, it will be disillusion with President Obama that turns the tide back to conservatism. We can sort of see that happening with the polls that I posted about a month ago. We'll see.

bush was the logical conclusion of conservative policies starting with the reagan revolution. i would say these policies led inexorably to an economy fucked over by deregulation, and a heavy-handed foreign policy that could only have created worldwide backlash. today we are paying the price for 20 (natch, 30) years of the "moral majority" and the rest of the neoconservatives dictating public policy and discourse.

people weren't upset with bush the person, they were upset with what bush did. and what bush did was in keeping with the momentum of the conservative movement. he was only the conduit through which conservatism hung itself.

Conservatism isn't about a TREMENDOUS LOT of things that Bush did. No...conservatism is NOT why people are upset with Bush.

"OMG NOT TRUE CONSERVATISM"-comments aside, what Bush did was entirely in keeping with the Republican philosophy and by extension the conservative movement.

So then what you're saying is..."I want to re-define conservatism to mean whatever I want it to mean"...sorry, but that's not how things work.

That's not at all what I'm saying.

The fact is that most of what Bush did was Republicanism, not conservatism. To equate Republican philosophy with conservative philosophy is dishonest, at best.

As Sultan already alluded to, this is simply a case of a True Scotsman fallacy. Just because other conservatives aren't representing what you think is right doesn't mean they aren't conservatives.

[Woodruff]

bush was the logical conclusion of conservative policies starting with the reagan revolution. i would say these policies led inexorably to an economy fucked over by deregulation, and a heavy-handed foreign policy that could only have created worldwide backlash. today we are paying the price for 20 (natch, 30) years of the "moral majority" and the rest of the neoconservatives dictating public policy and discourse.

people weren't upset with bush the person, they were upset with what bush did. and what bush did was in keeping with the momentum of the conservative movement. he was only the conduit through which conservatism hung itself.

Conservatism isn't about a TREMENDOUS LOT of things that Bush did. No...conservatism is NOT why people are upset with Bush.

lol go ahead and keep telling yourself that, champ

I didn't realize that conservatism was about gutting the benefits afforded to military personnel as well as retired military personnel...when did conservatives start championing that?

I didn't realize that conservatism was about invading other nations for no significant reason...when did conservatives start championing that?

The fact of the matter is that neither of those things has any relation to conservatism. They have to do with current Republicanism, yes...but that certainly is not conservatism. You simply hate conservatives so much that you want to pin as much as you can on them. You should step back and look at things a bit more clearly.

yeah and no true scotsman would be a sex offender

I guess this is your admission that you don't have a valid response?

[Woodruff]

bush was the logical conclusion of conservative policies starting with the reagan revolution. i would say these policies led inexorably to an economy fucked over by deregulation, and a heavy-handed foreign policy that could only have created worldwide backlash. today we are paying the price for 20 (natch, 30) years of the "moral majority" and the rest of the neoconservatives dictating public policy and discourse.

people weren't upset with bush the person, they were upset with what bush did. and what bush did was in keeping with the momentum of the conservative movement. he was only the conduit through which conservatism hung itself.

Conservatism isn't about a TREMENDOUS LOT of things that Bush did. No...conservatism is NOT why people are upset with Bush.

"OMG NOT TRUE CONSERVATISM"-comments aside, what Bush did was entirely in keeping with the Republican philosophy and by extension the conservative movement.

So then what you're saying is..."I want to re-define conservatism to mean whatever I want it to mean"...sorry, but that's not how things work.

That's not at all what I'm saying.

The fact is that most of what Bush did was Republicanism, not conservatism. To equate Republican philosophy with conservative philosophy is dishonest, at best.

As Sultan already alluded to, this is simply a case of a True Scotsman fallacy. Just because other conservatives aren't representing what you think is right doesn't mean they aren't conservatives.

What was it that Bush did that WAS conservative, then? Is Big Government a conservative philosophy? Is outrageous spending a conservative philosophy? Is fucking over active duty and retired military members a conservative philosophy? Is attacking nations for no real reason a conservative philosophy?

I mean seriously...Bush was not conservative JUST BECAUSE he was a Republican. That's like saying that Clinton was a liberal JUST BECAUSE he was a Democrat. It just doesn't make sense, and it's lazy thinking on your part.

[SultanOfSurreal]

Is Big Government a conservative philosophy?

yes

Is outrageous spending a conservative philosophy?

yes

Is fucking over active duty and retired military members a conservative philosophy?

yes

Is attacking nations for no real reason a conservative philosophy?

yes

[Woodruff]

Is Big Government a conservative philosophy?

yes

Is outrageous spending a conservative philosophy?

yes

Is fucking over active duty and retired military members a conservative philosophy?

yes

Is attacking nations for no real reason a conservative philosophy?

yes

So the gist of your post is that you don't actually understand conservatism? Because you've made that brilliantly apparent here. You should really try to educate yourself.

[SultanOfSurreal]

Is Big Government a conservative philosophy?

yes

Is outrageous spending a conservative philosophy?

yes

Is fucking over active duty and retired military members a conservative philosophy?

yes

Is attacking nations for no real reason a conservative philosophy?

yes

ronald reagan: liberal

[thegreekdog]

Yeah, you're getting lazy Sultan. Either that or you're not admitting you're wrong. You have admitted you are wrong before, so I'm not sure why this is so hard for you. In any event, some light reading for you on what conservatism actually is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conservatism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism

Ronald Reagan was fiscally conservative and probably socially moderate.

George W Bush was fiscally liberal and socially conservative.

The most conservative president since Reagan was probably President Clinton.

[Woodruff]

Yeah, you're getting lazy Sultan. Either that or you're not admitting you're wrong. You have admitted you are wrong before, so I'm not sure why this is so hard for you.

He couldn't possibly admit such a thing to me, as he hates me and everything I stand for, my being a former military member and all. What's particularly humorous is that what I stand for is largely what he stands for...though I believe I do so with less profanity and provocation.

[Dancing Mustard]

he hates me and everything I stand for

Not that I want to get in the way of proceedings or anything... but aren't you over egging the pudding a little bit?

I mean come on, you're steering dangerously close to the realm of melodrama.

[jbrettlip]

Yeah, you're getting lazy Sultan. Either that or you're not admitting you're wrong. You have admitted you are wrong before, so I'm not sure why this is so hard for you. In any event, some light reading for you on what conservatism actually is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conservatism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism

Ronald Reagan was fiscally conservative and probably socially moderate.

George W Bush was fiscally liberal and socially conservative.

The most conservative president since Reagan was probably President Clinton.

I am sorry, I think you have a typo. George W Bush was fiscally retarded and socially conservative.

[Snorri1234]

What was it that Bush did that WAS conservative, then? Is Big Government a conservative philosophy? Is outrageous spending a conservative philosophy? Is fucking over active duty and retired military members a conservative philosophy? Is attacking nations for no real reason a conservative philosophy?

I mean seriously...Bush was not conservative JUST BECAUSE he was a Republican. That's like saying that Clinton was a liberal JUST BECAUSE he was a Democrat. It just doesn't make sense, and it's lazy thinking on your part.

For someone with Mr Spock as his av you're very bad at logical fallacies.

You're trying to change the label of a group because you do not like unrelated things associated with that group. The republican party and Bush think of themselves as conservative, are seen by others as conservative and are in fact not opposing any conservative principles. To call them "not conservative" simply because you don't want to be associated with them is just silly.

In the end all "conservative" means is "sticking with tradition" or "whatever people who are said to be conservatives support". There is nothing in the definition of conservatism that says it's against universal healthcare, or immigration, or gay marriage/abortion.

[Woodruff]

he hates me and everything I stand for

Not that I want to get in the way of proceedings or anything... but aren't you over egging the pudding a little bit?

I have never heard that turn of phrase before...means something along the lines of "making things too rich" or "putting it on a little thick"? I always like a good non-American turn of phrase to use in my classroom to screw with the kids' heads a bit. <grin>

I mean come on, you're steering dangerously close to the realm of melodrama.

Oh, no argument. But it's closer to the truth than not. He has a clear hatred (or disgust) of military personnel just for being military personnel.

[Woodruff]

What was it that Bush did that WAS conservative, then? Is Big Government a conservative philosophy? Is outrageous spending a conservative philosophy? Is fucking over active duty and retired military members a conservative philosophy? Is attacking nations for no real reason a conservative philosophy?

I mean seriously...Bush was not conservative JUST BECAUSE he was a Republican. That's like saying that Clinton was a liberal JUST BECAUSE he was a Democrat. It just doesn't make sense, and it's lazy thinking on your part.

For someone with Mr Spock as his av you're very bad at logical fallacies.
You're trying to change the label of a group because you do not like unrelated things associated with that group. The republican party and Bush think of themselves as conservative, are seen by others as conservative and are in fact not opposing any conservative principles. To call them "not conservative" simply because you don't want to be associated with them is just silly.

Just because a group is typically thought to be something (for instance, conservative) does not mean that they are. In fact, I would say it's highly illogical (and very lazy) to make that presumption, as you are.

Sure, Republicans think of themselves as conservative, because that's comfortable to them. Bush's policies absolutely were not conservative as a whole...far from it, in fact.

In the end all "conservative" means is "sticking with tradition" or "whatever people who are said to be conservatives support". There is nothing in the definition of conservatism that says it's against universal healthcare, or immigration, or gay marriage/abortion.

Sure, that's true. And yet, "sticking with tradition" WOULD lead one to be against universal healthcare, gay marriage and abortion...that IS traditional in this country (no, I'm definitely not saying it's right). Notice I did not include immigration, as that would NOT be traditional in this country.

[Snorri1234]

Just because a group is typically thought to be something (for instance, conservative) does not mean that they are. In fact, I would say it's highly illogical (and very lazy) to make that presumption, as you are.

Sure, Republicans think of themselves as conservative, because that's comfortable to them. Bush's policies absolutely were not conservative as a whole...far from it, in fact.

You don't understand, you're being guilty of a True-Scotsman fallacy because you're trying to obscure a term by saying the bad people are inherently not part of the group.

In the end all "conservative" means is "sticking with tradition" or "whatever people who are said to be conservatives support". There is nothing in the definition of conservatism that says it's against universal healthcare, or immigration, or gay marriage/abortion.

Sure, that's true. And yet, "sticking with tradition" WOULD lead one to be against universal healthcare, gay marriage and abortion...that IS traditional in this country (no, I'm definitely not saying it's right). Notice I did not include immigration, as that would NOT be traditional in this country.

Except that my point is that those things aren't traditional in many other countries. If a definition changes based on which country you're talking about and with the times, then it's not a rigorous definition and therefore subject to popular view.

That means that what people think off as conservative at any given time is what is conservative at any given time.

And if you agree that conservatism is "sticking with tradition" then fucking over military members, attacking countries for no real reason and outrageous spending are perfect examples of good-old American traditions.

[Woodruff]

Just because a group is typically thought to be something (for instance, conservative) does not mean that they are. In fact, I would say it's highly illogical (and very lazy) to make that presumption, as you are.

Sure, Republicans think of themselves as conservative, because that's comfortable to them. Bush's policies absolutely were not conservative as a whole...far from it, in fact.

You don't understand, you're being guilty of a True-Scotsman fallacy because you're trying to obscure a term by saying the bad people are inherently not part of the group.

No, I'm not. Whether Bush is bad or not (did I say he was?) is irrelevant to my statement. It also presumes I think Republicans are "bad", and I certainly don't remember saying that.

In the end all "conservative" means is "sticking with tradition" or "whatever people who are said to be conservatives support". There is nothing in the definition of conservatism that says it's against universal healthcare, or immigration, or gay marriage/abortion.

Sure, that's true. And yet, "sticking with tradition" WOULD lead one to be against universal healthcare, gay marriage and abortion...that IS traditional in this country (no, I'm definitely not saying it's right). Notice I did not include immigration, as that would NOT be traditional in this country.

Except that my point is that those things aren't traditional in many other countries.

That is 100% irrelevant. It IS traditional for THIS country's history. Since we're speaking of the American brand of conservatism here (what used to be the Republican part), that is what is relevant.

Hell, American liberals are conservative by European standards, so how does that definition help any?

And if you agree that conservatism is "sticking with tradition" then fucking over military members, attacking countries for no real reason and outrageous spending are perfect examples of good-old American traditions.

Historically, American conservatives treat the military VERY well, actually. You're very wrong about that one. And perhaps you can point out for me where historically conservatives in the United States have been "traditional" about attacking countries for no reason? Using the CIA to assist coups, absolutely...but military attacks? I don't think so.

[GabonX]

Nam was started by democrats. Kennedy and Johnson..

[HapSmo19]

Minnesota, WTF??

[Snorri1234]

That is 100% irrelevant. It IS traditional for THIS country's history. Since we're speaking of the American brand of conservatism here (what used to be the Republican part), that is what is relevant.

Hell, American liberals are conservative by European standards, so how does that definition help any?

So anyone who isn't against gay marriage or abortion is automatically not a conservative?

My point is that the term "conservative" does not have a fixed definition. It simply doesn't and it's absurd to say it does. It is given meaning by people and when people change so does the definition. And since the definition, according to most people, now includes Bush and the Republican party they are conservative. You're welcome to say you disagree with the Republicans and that you stand for something else, but it's silly to suggest they're not conservative.

Do you even know what a True Scotsman fallacy is?

And if you agree that conservatism is "sticking with tradition" then fucking over military members, attacking countries for no real reason and outrageous spending are perfect examples of good-old American traditions.

Historically, American conservatives treat the military VERY well, actually. You're very wrong about that one. And perhaps you can point out for me where historically conservatives in the United States have been "traditional" about attacking countries for no reason? Using the CIA to assist coups, absolutely...but military attacks? I don't think so.

Did I say anything about the conservatives being responsible for it?

While they ofcourse were for a few occasions, my point is that it's tradition.