I was wrong about you conservatives

The conservative tendency to label opponents as “unAmerican” or “unpatriotic” has always gotten me a little … angry, shall we say? I’ll even admit I’ve taken it personally. Who gave them or anyone else the right to define what is American and what is not? And what is unpatriotic about opposing a war that in the long term will weaken our country militarily, economically, politically and morally, as the invasion of Iraq has done?

More recently, though, I’ve come to realize that I owe conservatives an apology of sorts. I had long thought that there was something calculated in their approach, that flinging words such as “unAmerican” at their rivals was a conscious and well-thought-out attack strategy, along the lines of Newt Gingrich’s infamous GOPAC memo. I was wrong about that.

Instead, I’ve come to understand that the attack on loyalty is instinctive, and in that sense sincere and genuine. It’s an inherent attitude that helps to define conservatives as conservative, and to define other people as not conservative. Put bluntly, conservatives put a higher value on unquestioned loyalty to country, party, cause and group than nonconservatives do. That is not meant in this context as a criticism, merely as an observation.

Listen to the debate between the Powell wing and the Limbaugh wing of the GOP, for example, and you hear eerily familiar rhetoric and all-too-familiar modes of attack. Once again, you see the same insistence on loyalty to the group, and the same discomfort with dissent or difference.

Instead of claiming that liberals aren’t real Americans, the conservatives claim that moderates aren’t real Republicans. Moderates are described as traitors to the party and the cause, and they are told, in effect, to love the party or leave it. As RNC Chairman Michael Steele said recently, moderates are welcome in the party, but only if they accept the fact they’ll have no influence.

“Understand that when you come into someone’s house, you’re not looking to change it,” he said. “You come in because that’s the place you want to be.”

Over at Redstate.com, Erick Erickson offers an interesting variation on the theme, and in fact takes it to a whole ‘nother level. He equates the disloyalty of Republicans who dare to criticize party leaders such as Rush Limbaugh to the disloyalty shown by Peter to Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Yes, he really does.

“Peter denied Christ three times,” Erickson writes. “Our goal should be to not deny Christ and also to not deny the valuable members of our own movement.”

I acknowledge that’s an extreme example. I acknowledge as well that such attitudes are found among liberals as well, if to a lesser degree. Overall, however, the conservative emphasis on group loyalty and the liberal acceptance of dissent help to define the two camps at least as clearly as their positions on taxes or regulation.

275 comments Add your comment

DB, Gwinnettian

May 28th, 2009
3:17 pm

Jay, reading Erick Son-of-Erick’s blog will rot your brain.

Really, it will.

Dave R

May 28th, 2009
3:19 pm

Jay.

Re: The title of your piece?

We’ve been telling you that for years. It’s taken you this long to get it?

DB, Gwinnettian

May 28th, 2009
3:21 pm

Erick son-of-Erick writes: “We should be mindful of William F. Buckley tossing out the Birchers. But therein lies part of the present burden on our movement. There are lots of creeping leftists in the conservative movement who want to exile large segments of the movement so the media will declare them the next William F. Buckley.”

Dude. large segments of the movement ARE Birchers. They just don’t call themselves that any more.

RetLTC

May 28th, 2009
3:25 pm

So if those who didn’t support the policies of GWB during a time of war were unpatriotic, does that mean that those not lining up behind the present POTUS are too? Or does Obama calling it an overseas contingency operation let them off the hook?

AmVet

May 28th, 2009
3:36 pm

Ill-equipped to deal with the modern world, one that isn’t predicated on religious superstition, the neo-cons are finally reduced to platitudes, good old Joe McCarthyism and a repudiated flat-earth ideology that looks constantly…backwards.

To wit, the reverence that the faithful still laud upon Saint Ronnie.

The man who ultimately began the implosion of this current pulverized Party of No, with his moronic 11th Commandment, “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”

Little did we realize that the worst of these jerks were to add a 12th Commandment, “Thou shalt always speak ill of all non-Republicans.”

Well, the irrefutable fact is that they are where they deserve to be these days.

And the rest of us celebrate their ongoing emasculation…

mike

May 28th, 2009
3:38 pm

“The conservative tendency to label opponents as “unAmerican” or “unpatriotic” has always gotten me a little … angry, shall we say?”

What nonsense. It isn’t conservatives who do this. It is angry partisans of both stripes who do this.

Jay needs to read the quotes from the many liberals on this blog who regularly question the patriotism of conservatives. If he did, he wouldn’t make such silly statement.

mike

May 28th, 2009
3:40 pm

“So if those who didn’t support the policies of GWB during a time of war were unpatriotic, does that mean that those not lining up behind the present POTUS are too??

Many liberals make this accusation every day.

DB, Gwinnettian

May 28th, 2009
3:40 pm

Paul, if you’re around, I tried twice to post a reply to yours, downstairs.

I fear both have been eated.

But they were genius, genius, I tells ya.

N.J,

May 28th, 2009
3:41 pm

Of course. You hear echoes of this on this web site all the time.

Liberal is almost always associated with “Socialism” or “Marxism” when the most famous LIBERAL political/economic systems in history are of course “Democratic Republic’ forms of government and “Capitalism”

Capitalism is of course the last philosophy to develop out of the Euruopean Enlightenment’s phase of “liberalism”

Of course Newt decided on a very “Orwellian” language control doctrine which associated the liberal and progressive forms of capitalism, which are designed to avoid the creation of monopolies and a class of wage slaves which was in the orignal designs of Smith and Ricardo, who had no objection to government regulations as long as those regulations prevented extremes at both ends. The total government control of business AND the concentration of the control of the private sector into the hands of a small, and hereditary group of wealthy families.

That is to say, REAL capitalism prevents the creation of an entrenched concetration of wealth into a few families, ie, the creation of some sort of hereditary ruling elite.

Basically Newt could not have done better than “Big Brother” with his use of language control structures to create a permanent dictatorship, a permanent external enemy which threatened the lifestyle of the inhabitants of “Oceania” etc.

Of course there is ZERO relationship between the Democratic Party’s economic philosophy and Marxism. None at all. Even FRD’s new Deal was largely based on a Christian program of social responsibility. Roosevelt copied and relied on a set of programs first written of by Monseignor John A. Ryan. Virtually every New Deal program has its roots in Father Ryan’s social teaching and his writings in his chosen field of studies, economics. Ryan was rewarded for his influence on social economics in the United States for his christian influence on FDR by the Catholic Church in 1933 when he was promoted from priest to Monseignor.

The Vatican has largely accepted the works of Father Ryan as the basis of their entire 20th and 21st century policies on social justice.

While at the Catholic University of America, Ryan wrote “The Bishops’ Program for Social Reconstruction February 1919″

Ryan forsaw that his ideas would be attacked by conservatives as “socialism’ but he was well prepared to counter those attacks:

The Cardinal’s special reference to the action of labor was undoubtedly suggested by the now famous “Social Reconstruction Program” of the British Labor Party. This document was drawn up about one year ago, and is generally understood to be the work of the noted economist and Fabian Socialist, Mr. Sidney Webb. Unquestionably, it is the most comprehensive and coherent program that has yet appeared on the industrial phase of reconstruction. In brief it sets up “four pillars” of the new social order:

(1) The enforcement by law of a National minimum of leisure, health, education and subsistence;

(2) The democratic control of industry, which means the nationalization of all monopolistic industries and possibly of other industries, sometime in the future, if that course be found advisable;

(3) A revolution in national finance; that is, a system of taxation which will compel capital to pay for the war, leaving undisturbed the national minimum of welfare for the masses;

(4) Use of the surplus wealth of the nation for the common good; that is, to provide capital, governmental industries, and funds for social, educational and artistic progress.

This program may properly be described as one of immediate radical reforms, leading ultimately to complete Socialism. Evidently this outcome cannot be approved by Catholics.

http://www.stthomas.edu/CathStudies/cst/aboutus/bishopsprogram.html

A young FDR was greatly influenced by this document.

The Bishop’s Program became the guiding force for the National Catholic Welfare Council’s Social Action Department and Catholic progressives in the 1920s and 1930s.

Many of the recommendations in the Bishop’s Program were enacted 15 years later during Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. The National Recovery Administration’s attempts to stabilize capitalism by organizing industrial output, wages, and providing some form of worker representation and collective bargaining were familiar to anyone who had read Ryan’s publications.

Ryan’s closeness to FDR and the New Deal both personally and politically garnered him the nickname “Right Reverend New Dealer.” In 1937 FDR asked Ryan to be the first Catholic priest to provide the invocation at a presidential inauguration, an honor he performed a second time for FDR in 1945, not long before both men died.

http://www.stthomas.edu/cathstudies/cst/aboutus/ryaninfo.html

For all the right wing, neo con assertions about FDR and Democratic policies over the years, the Democratic Party’s economic policies are totally based on principals derived from Christian ethics, and are totally unrelated to Marxist economic theory or Socialist economic theory. They are rooted in the European Judeo Christian tradition.

DebbieDoRight

May 28th, 2009
3:42 pm

Jay, He equates the disloyalty of Republicans who dare to criticize party leaders such as Rush Limbaugh to the disloyalty shown by Peter to Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. Yes, he really does. “Peter denied Christ three times,” Erickson writes. “Our goal should be to not deny Christ and also to not deny the valuable members of our own movement.”

That sound eerily like a “cult speak” to me. Go back and look up the People’s Temple, and that David Koresh group, along with the Warren Jeffs followers and those people in NM. You’re scaring me Jay.

N.J,

May 28th, 2009
3:50 pm

And by all possible definitions of the times the founding fathers would really fit into the definition of “radical lefists” far to the left of what would be considered the “conservatives” of their day, and 50 years later, they were still considered radical leftists by the clergy and conservatives of those times. The idea that the form of government God prefered best was the monarchy and the divine right of kings, the idea that a small group of this hereditarily landed and wealthy group was appointed by God Almighty to rule over the unwashed masses, was considered religious orthodoxy and the idea of allowing people to actually override God’s chosen and elect their own government was heresy, and a hundred years before the founders, one could be burned at the stake for even breathing such statements.

The founders themselves, after becoming heads of state, as well as other officials in government, frequently and bitterly complained about the conservative efforts to undo their radical departure from the systems that governed all other nations on earth.

retiredds

May 28th, 2009
3:54 pm

I find Erick Erickson using Peter and his denial of Jesus very interesting. I believe that Peter was also the rock upon which the Christian church was built. Evidently Jesus was well adjusted enough to recognize that dissent within the ranks was not a good enough reason to “throw the bums out”. But then again, cult thinking is: if you’re not with us you’re against us. No room for debate, just doctrine regardless.

TnGelding

May 28th, 2009
3:55 pm

Jay, are you saying they have some kind of limitation on their thought processes or just self-righteous?

ByteMe

May 28th, 2009
3:56 pm

Goose-stepping, anyone?

And mike, the liberals do it now as sort of a taunt more than anything. As a way to show that neo-chickenhawks who used it before are now completely impotent to use their earlier “My way or the highway” arguments that were unfortunately very effective.

And if you don’t think I’m right, then you’re clearly Unamerican. Got it? :lol:

jt

May 28th, 2009
4:01 pm

“Overall, however, the conservative emphasis on group loyalty and the liberal acceptance of dissent help to define the two camps at least as clearly as their positions on taxes or regulation.”

The R & D party’s position on taxes and regulation is more and more respectfully. A true conservative would have nothing to do with this party. Likewise for an intelligent liberal. (they do exist).

DB, Gwinnettian

May 28th, 2009
4:01 pm

I believe that Peter was also the rock upon which the Christian church was built.

Naw, you’re thinking of Paul/Saul. (Who never met Jesus in the flesh.)

N.J,

May 28th, 2009
4:02 pm

Well Debbie, its no mistake that after the 1960’s cults in America tend to be offshoots of the Jesus movement of the 1960’s and other non mainstream Christian denomination than they are of any of the more unusual religions that were toyed with during the high water mark years of the “counter culture”

Since events like the Branch Davidians and Ruby Ridge, the tendency in the U.S. has been rather towards small “cottage industry cults”. Rather than having core memberships in the area of 75 as Koresh had, you are getting small “home study” forms of religions which tend to stray very, very far from the mainstream.

Oddly enough, in the United States, the two groups least susceptible to this small cult phenomenon has been the Roman Catholic Church, and Muslims. Also Judaism has little room for movement and outside interpretation that results in the founding of many cults based on them.

All three have a very centralized set of authority structures, doctines, and rules, and very old interpretations of doctrines and rules that prevent much leeway for personal religious interpretation.
There are of course, some exceptions, but you do not get as many cults branching off from these three as you do religions that assert that each man is his own priest, but usually ends up with a single figure determining what is orthodox and what is heterodox for that small group.

N.J,

May 28th, 2009
4:04 pm

Or simply put, there are an estimated 5000 cults in the United States, most are small and offshoots of non mainstream Christian churches.

mike

May 28th, 2009
4:05 pm

ByteMe –

” the liberals do it now as sort of a taunt more than anything.”

Nonsense. I have posted several links to many examples that are not taunts, but flat out accusations. For some reason, they are “awaiting moderation”. Go google “Republicans are unpatriotic” and you will see what I mean.

Also, you should stop calling Obama and Clinton chickenhawks. They deserve better than that even though they supported the Afghan War from the beginning and never served.

Dave R

May 28th, 2009
4:05 pm

NJ, please stop posting. I haven’t got my new mouse yet since you burned out my scroll wheel.

mike

May 28th, 2009
4:07 pm

I also posted several links to sites that call Lieberman a traitor, demonstrating that it isn’t just conservatives who decide who is a good member of their party. They too are “awaiting moderation”. Feel free to google “Lieberman is a traitor” to see what I am talking about.

Kamchak

May 28th, 2009
4:07 pm

After marginalizing communists, socialists, liberals, environmentalists, gays, minorities, atheists, non Christians, Democrats, the countries of France and Sweden “true conservatives” have begun to marginalize their own. No big surprise, as the Southern Baptist Convention did the same thing some 15-20 years ago when they labeled moderate Baptists as ultra-liberal. This is a last man standing contest among very competitive people.

Daedalus

May 28th, 2009
4:08 pm

That’s the old Conservatives Jay. Since they lost the election, they all want to secede now. You know, ‘States Rights’ and that kind of thing.

C’mon you wingnuts, you lost one election (well two if you count 2006) and you want to disband the United States. Whatever happened to ‘America, Love it or leave it’? I guess that only applies when the white guys are in power. As we used to say on the ranch, its time to Cowboy Up. But that would take courage instead of name-calling.

So, never mind.

ty webb

May 28th, 2009
4:08 pm

Well done Jay. A Straw man and some red meat in one Blog. Nicely played. This should last awhile. Take care everyone.

ByteMe

May 28th, 2009
4:09 pm

mike: more than 2 links in a posting gets it put in the “moderation forever” queue. Which seems like a reasonable way to annoy spammers, huh?

I didn’t call anyone in particular names. That’s your game, not mine. And you referenced the liberals on this blog, so maybe you could keep your google to yourself.

mike

May 28th, 2009
4:09 pm

Kamchak –

And you don’t marginilalize conservatives by calling them names every day? Your hypocrisy is laughable.

Uncivil behavior is common among both stripes of angry partisans. The only people who don’t recognize that are angry partisans.

jt

May 28th, 2009
4:10 pm

N.J. lost alot of credibility when he claimed, in a previous post, that the south did not have “many credible technologic discoveries”.

As if he had much to begin with, since he insists on defending a bloated corrupt federal goverment.

mike

May 28th, 2009
4:10 pm

ByteMe –

“I didn’t call anyone in particular names. That’s your game, not mine.”

Actually, it is your game as you just did it when you said “neo-chickenhawks”.

Please provide examples of me calling people names. You are just projecting.

ByteMe

May 28th, 2009
4:12 pm

Kamchak: it’s one of the interesting thing about terrorists and radicals that most people don’t get… once they are done fighting with everyone else, they’ll turn on each other, just because hatred and sociopathy really doesn’t know how to turn itself off.

The cure seems to be to take away their audience and eventually they fade away.

ByteMe

May 28th, 2009
4:13 pm

mike: did you see me write that any person in particular was a neo-chickenhawk or was that you who did it?

Time to move along.

Daedalus

May 28th, 2009
4:13 pm

Yo DB. I think Jay is right about Peter:

Matthew 16: 18-19 states: “18 And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.” These verses tell of Jesus’s proclamation that Peter, and thus his successors, shall be the head of the Church as the sole custodians of the Christian faith.

Not bad for a godless, America-hating liberal Jay (no offense meant– I assume you are used to being accused of being godless and hating america after what you usually get on these posts and did not want you to feel unappreciated).

mike

May 28th, 2009
4:14 pm

Let’s be clear about the mindset of many of the liberals on this blog (including Jay):

It is wrong to call someone a racist….unless it is a liberal doing it

It is wrong to question someone’s patriotism ….unless it is a liberal doing it

It is wrong to decide who is a good party member ….unless it is a liberal doing it

mike

May 28th, 2009
4:16 pm

ByteMe –

“did you see me write that any person in particular was a neo-chickenhawk or was that you who did it?”

Well, who were you referring to? Is it better to call a whole group “chickenhawks” than it is to call an individual “chickenhawks?” Your logic is absurd.

Pogo

May 28th, 2009
4:18 pm

Read a book called “Liberal Facism”, if you dare. I doubt that you will because the truth always hurts. Liberals like you are becoming the monster that they espouse to hate. The modern fascists are todays liberals and yesterdays progressives. Empathy for all of mankind and the compulsion to tell us how to live our lives for the “good of ourselves and the good of the whole”. That is how fascism always starts and sooner or later, it evolves into the likes of some of the most dispicable people (Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini)and the saddest times the world has ever known. Keep you eyes open Jaybird. The liberal mantra is is now one of intolerance as evidenced here on a daily basis by yourself and your “followers”. The enemy to all of us is much closer than you think. And it ain’t the conservatives.

TnGelding

May 28th, 2009
4:19 pm

mike

May 28th, 2009
4:07 pm

Lieberman, like Specter, put himself above the best interests of his party and the political process. He deluded himself into thinking he was too important to ride off into the sunset. They both should be required to take a course in humility, before being tarred and feathered.

ByteMe

May 28th, 2009
4:19 pm

mike: I don’t need to name names. The neo-chickenhawks know who they are and announce themselves proudly out here and elsewhere every day.

mike

May 28th, 2009
4:21 pm

TnGelding –

“Lieberman, like Specter, put himself above the best interests of his party and the political process.”

Right. And you don’t think that the partisans who accuse Powell of not being a true Republicans are any less certain in their beliefs. Thanks for proving my point.

Kamchak

May 28th, 2009
4:22 pm

Bytme

Yes–but the real trick is to stop them from humping your leg.

mike

May 28th, 2009
4:23 pm

ByteMe:

“I don’t need to name names.”

Then why did you ask:

“did you see me write that any person in particular was a neo-chickenhawk ?”

Your logic is pathetic.

Also, you should stop calling Obama and Clinton chickenhawks. They deserve better than that even though they supported the Afghan War from the beginning and never served.

mike

May 28th, 2009
4:23 pm

Kamchak –

Actually, the real trick is to get someone like yourself to respond with anything but such juvenille nonsense when they are proven to be hypocrites.

GayGrayGeek

May 28th, 2009
4:24 pm

mike – With your powers of projection, have you considered a career in the motion picture industry?

DebbieDoRight

May 28th, 2009
4:25 pm

NJ — I find it very telling and a little frightening that a political party is likening its leaders to Jesus Christ!!! They are referencing any dissension of a person or a process as dissension to JESUS or christianity. If you read about the People’s Temple, that’s what Jim Jones did!!!

chuck

May 28th, 2009
4:27 pm

DB, and retireds, Actually NEITHER of you are correct, though retireds is closer. The statement from Jesus “upon this rock I will build my church”, was spoke TO PETER, but was not referring to Peter, rather Peter’s statement, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. ”

THAT is the rock upon which the church was built…the TRUTH of that statement.

As for the topic however, I have to say Jay that in some respects you are right.When it comes to the FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES that made this country great, TRUE AMERICANS are not willing to compromise at all. The LEFT on the other hand are perfectly willing to compromise when it will weaken America or allow them to tromp on all that is great about America. They will compromise those principles in a heartbeat if it will allow them to FEEL GOOD.

I used to think that it was ALL just politics. The democrat party just opposed whatever the Republicans wanted and vice-versa. To a dgree, it is…IN THE MIDDLE where Colin Powell is. That is why you see such vitriole directed toward him. HE KNOWS THE TRUTH and now he is denying it in an attempt to co-op the party. I can tell you Jay, it ain’t gonna happen. While I will always honor his service to America, he is pure and simple, a TRAITOR to those basic American principles that the CORE of the Republican Party stands for. (And I am not talking about Limbaugh here. I am referring to the Traditional right of the Party. Those of us who are both SOCIAL Conservatives AND FISCAL Conservatives.)

mike

May 28th, 2009
4:27 pm

GayGrayGreek –

“mike – With your powers of projection, have you considered a career in the motion picture industry?”

Hmm. Your comment might make sense if I called people names, but I don’t so your comment is just empty rhetoric.

Of course, spouting empty rhetoric is so much easier than rebutting an argument based on demonstrated fact.

Dave R

May 28th, 2009
4:27 pm

Tax revenues drop in April from last year’s numbers:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2009-05-26-irs-tax-revenue-down_N.htm

Now that’s Change You Can Believe In!

chuck

May 28th, 2009
4:29 pm

coopT the party

N.J,

May 28th, 2009
4:31 pm

Of course the south doesnt have many creditable technological discoveries. Prime reason for the loss of the Civil War was that most the agriculture was in the South, most of the technology was in the North.

Look at the automobile, Edisons massive list of inventions, the airplane etc. radio…television, telephone. While the Wright brothers used Kitty Hawk NC for enough ROOM for their first flights, the development of the plane occured in Dayton, Ohio, where they had their bicycle shop. Even the invention that revolutionized the cotton industry, and reinvigorates slavery was invented in Massachussetts. Whitney ended up SELLING the rights to the gin to South Carolina.

Until the 1970’s when the federal government started loading up southern universities with tons of research dollars, you see little of the technology that is really the platform for our modern technological life having been invented in the South. And of those inventions invented in the South, those were largely invented by freed blacks after the Civil War. Charles Drew, African American born in Washington DC educated in Montreal Canada (guess why), invented the process for separating out plasma from blood, but again he did this in New York, basically for the World War II effort to get blood from the United States to Great Britain.

The preponderance of evidence is that the majority of American invention, the stuff that makes our life what it is today, was invented in the North, the upper midwest, or out in California. Not much in the South until a lot of research dollars from the federal government started pouring into the local universities.

TnGelding

May 28th, 2009
4:33 pm

Dave R

May 28th, 2009
4:27 pm

Were you expecting them to go up?

N.J,

May 28th, 2009
4:37 pm

No, the conservatives have finally lost it. They have lost all credibility in economic philosophy, they have pretty much been stagnant when it comes to democratic political ideals, and so they are grasping at the last untouchables, one of which is simply religion. But the Republicans are not the only ones to do this. I seem to remember one Democrat comparing another to Judas for supporting Obama rather than Hillary Clinton, so its just one of those places that politicians reach for when they have hit a wall everyplace else.

Dave R

May 28th, 2009
4:38 pm

md

May 28th, 2009
4:38 pm

We vs they.

And there is question as to why this country is in the mess it is in?

We are like one big dysfunctional family that doesn’t know how to live with each other unless someone starts picking on “mom”.

Side note to Jay – is it common for a screen name to be copied on these boards? If so, I’m flattered that someone has decided to say ugly things using mine in the downstairs thread.

N.J,

May 28th, 2009
4:39 pm

Nah, religion is just the last place that politicians go when they run out of running room. As I recall, a Hillary loyalist compared a few of his co-Democratic Party members to Judas when they threw in with Obama rather than with Clinton, considering that they owed their political position to Clinton. It happens. Both Jesus and Judas have been the inspiration for a lot of things that would have embarassed the hell out of both of them had they been alive to offer a rebuttal.

Midori

May 28th, 2009
4:42 pm

Mrs. Godzilla

May 28th, 2009
4:42 pm

so it seems that what’s good for the goose is not so okay for the gander!

honk. honk.

sorry boys and girls, the right used that old un-American canard gazillions more than the left.

byte me’s right – we use it to tweek the right….and apparently they are feeling tweekish today!

N.J,

May 28th, 2009
4:45 pm

Well the reason that we are in the mess we are in is that economics has its own sort of inertia. It tends to stay at rest when its at rest, an it tends to keep moving when its moving unless some force can get it moving, or get it to slow down when its rolling down a hill.

The idea that Obama can somehow slow an economy that has lost trillions on its way down, with only BILLIONS to work with means that it will take more time, rather than less, to slow and reverse the fall.

This occured during the Great Depression. Roosevelt SLOWED the economic collapse, when he was only spending 9 or 10 percent of GDP in to deal with it, but the economy reversed and started going into overdrive when he started spending 30, 40, and finally 43 percent of GDP getting the economy going again. And it only took a few years for his successor to eliminate most of that deficit because of the stimulus caused by it. Truman virtually paid off all of the Roosevelt deficit.

Dave R

May 28th, 2009
4:47 pm

No Gelding. I just thought that it was rather ironic for them to go down, when Hope & Change said just last night at a fundraiser that “we’ve turned a corner” on this economy and that things are getting better.

I’m Hoping for a Change in the White House.

Paul

May 28th, 2009
4:49 pm

DB, Gwinnettian

When you return:

[[Paul, if you’re around, I tried twice to post a reply to yours, downstairs.

I fear both have been eated.

But they were genius, genius, I tells ya.]]

I read and I responded. You are correct, yours were pure genius.

But mine were geniuser!

mike

May 28th, 2009
4:49 pm

“byte me’s right – we use it to tweek the right….and apparently they are feeling tweekish today!”

That is such a lame excuse. Google “Republicans are unpatriotic” and you will see that many liberals are dead serious in this accusation. The “just kidding” excuse was lame in grade school. To see adults using it is pathetic.

Even if that was not the case, how do you know that conservatives were not just “tweeking” liberals? Because it is easier to make blanket assumptions about people’s motivations to suit your pre-existing prejudices? Lame.

Swami Dave

May 28th, 2009
4:50 pm

N.J.

The fallacy of Ryan & Roosevelt’s transposition of a Judeo-Christian ethic to government via the New Deal (and the hijacking of those ideals as mechanisms to acquire political power) is that that ethic of “loving and helping a neighbor as yourself” were never intended to be codified / exercised by direction of government.

They were and are a calling for members to act through their local assemblies; not creating government bureaucracies that collect taxes to provide benefits “on their behalf”. The intent of the ethic was for members to be actively engaged in being a influence for good and grace among those in need by which their head, God, would be given credit.

As is many times the case, good intentions have infected that simple design by creating a monstrosity that confiscates ever-more allowing those who should be helping to abdicate their charge thereby credit going to government (or politicians who acquire power by it).

Sorry, it is socialism whether you like it or not. Likewise, it is a fraud perpetuated upon America that breeds distrust, anger, and bitterness by permanently segmenting society between those who are not held responsible for their own lives and actions (expecting others to provide for their care, livelihood, and existence) and those who are expected to support the poor lifestyle decisions and behaviors of other (largely against their will).

Regardless of how you exercise moral relativity, it is THEFT to take the earnings or wealth of one individual against their will to fund benefit or transfer payments to another without an equitable exchange of value. It is THEFT whether you do it on a street corner with a gun or in the halls of government with a pen.

Facts are simply facts and, like History and Common Sense, they refute Liberalism (which could be more aptly labelled “Collectivism”).

-SD

getalife

May 28th, 2009
4:50 pm

conservatism is a mental disorder where cons can’t differentiate right from wrong.

Torture, rape of kids, stolen freedoms, Iraq, etc… no big deal for cons because they lost the ability to see right from wrong. They chose party over country, part time patriots if you will and want our new President to fail in a time of war.

Patriotic?

More like mental distress.

Pity the cons for they can’t see right from wrong. For proof, just read their comments.

Dave R

May 28th, 2009
4:50 pm

N.J. on the economy:

“It tends to stay at rest when its at rest, an it tends to keep moving when its moving”

Wax on; wax off.

We have our own little Karate Kid on this blog!

mike

May 28th, 2009
4:54 pm

getalife –

“They chose party over country, part time patriots if you will and want our new President to fail in a time of war.”

Didn’t you read Jay’s column? Only conservatives question the patriotism of those who don’t share their views.

LOL

Let me guess, folks. getalife is just kidding when he is talking about rape of children.

md

May 28th, 2009
4:54 pm

“no big deal for cons because they lost the ability to see right from wrong.”

I would think your little rant would apply to abortion as well, but I guess it depends on what side of the fence one is on.

Your rant may work with your definitions, but not so well with other’s definitions.

mike

May 28th, 2009
4:57 pm

getalife –

So let’s be clear. You truly believe that conservatives are immoral and unpatriotic? Am I misinterpreting your statement?

Paul

May 28th, 2009
4:58 pm

DB, Gwinnettian, 4:01

[[I believe that Peter was also the rock upon which the Christian church was built.

Naw, you’re thinking of Paul/Saul. (Who never met Jesus in the flesh.)]]

I believe that was Peter. Jesus asked Peter who he thought Jesus was and Peter said “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God” and Jesus said nobody but God told him that and said “thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.”

It’s the Catholic claim to fame. Mormon, too, I believe.

Jay

Nice to hear a liberal say “I was incorrect, I’ve changed my mind.”

[[I acknowledge as well that such attitudes are found among liberals as well, if to a lesser degree.]]

I wonder – at the extremes? Isn’t the ‘conservative’ thing here really a really, really conservative group that’s withering away the Republican party? Rather like the farfarleft who ostracize the likes of a Lieberman?

But it’s really good to hear you can change your mind. After thoughtful reflection.

Just like Senator Harry Reid, who said no way were terrorists coming to America, then a day or two later said, well, sure they can! (I believe he changed his mind right after Pres Obama did a fundraiser for him). You, Reid, Obama… why, it’s a real epidemic of mind changing among liberals!

Progress!!!

Tamye Bobyie Huntyr

May 28th, 2009
4:59 pm

Well it sounds like my ole fraternity brother Wyld Byll might think I dune turned all gay or something.

I am hurt that he dose not remember Bobye Huntyr. I know I am not wyld or anything, more tamye you might say, but back in college at our sacred Krappa Moon Pi house we was like real brothers. Do you think that beer up his nose might have dune his cerebral cortex some harm? We didn’t mean nothin by it, just a little torture among brothers and all. When our great grandaddies was being initiated at Krappa Moon Pi, butt naked and strapped down and takin it like a true Krappa man always does, there was not any whining or moaning, well maybe Wyld Byll’s Grandaddy whined a bit, but Bobye Huntyr laid there and just drunk up all that beer. Then he went and visited my great grandma, God rest her saintly soul, who told him she was to remain pure and go visit those darkie women again, just make sure they wash that couchie real good first.

Amen brother Byll, I know Jesus ,just like I know you do too. And I know our immortal souls will be with Jesus for eternity. It don’t matter none that we might have committed a few sins along the way, what matters is we BELIEVE, say amen. Everybody else is going straight to hell, where there aint no beer or couchie.

getalife

May 28th, 2009
5:00 pm

Thanks to RW, I took my theory of conservatism and posted on Hot Air for a month.

When I brought up or anybody dared speak ill about rush, hannity, torture or wanting the President to fail in a time of war, the con mob would attack . Childish and very silly attacks.

Another thing cons never admit.

Being wrong.

mike

May 28th, 2009
5:03 pm

getalife –

“Childish and very silly attacks.”

You mean like saying that conservatives are all immoral and all unpatriotic like you just did?

Not only are you blinded by hatred, you are an amazing hypocrite.

mike

May 28th, 2009
5:05 pm

getalife –

“Another thing cons never admit. Being wrong.”

I actually admitted I was wrong to Jay and the whole group about the Liberty college thing yesterday and I am con.

When have you last admitted you were wrong on this blog? Every time I present you with evidence that you are wrong, your response is always “whatever” (literately).

getalife

May 28th, 2009
5:06 pm

Yeah, like mike’s comment.

You post at Hot Air mike?

Go over there and say something nice about the President and you will see what I am talking about.

mike

May 28th, 2009
5:10 pm

getalife –

“You post at Hot Air mike?”

Nope. The only conservative blog I go to is newsbusters and I am well aware that your conservative counterparts are just as hateful in their partisanship as you are. I have never claimed that there are not just as many mindless conservatives partisans as there are mindless liberal partisans. Only a fool believes otherwise.

Besides, I say nice things about Obama here and I have Whiner here to call me a tool of the left :)

Paul

May 28th, 2009
5:10 pm

getalife

I just popped in on Hot Air – it seems there are a number of blogs there? Where’d you post – Malkin? Sounds like fun -

Scooter

May 28th, 2009
5:11 pm

Mike,

I have told getalife to get a life.He just can’t do it!

Midori

May 28th, 2009
5:11 pm

Paul,

what am I going to do with you?

Joey

May 28th, 2009
5:12 pm

Jay;
The thing about you that has annoyed, concerned, me for nearly two decades is not your dislike and disrespect, which lately has risen to the level of hate, for Conservatives.

No, it is your blind, unfailing love and loyality to anything Democrat or Progressive.

Tamye Bobyie Huntyr

May 28th, 2009
5:16 pm

You two girls need to kiss and make up now.

getalife

May 28th, 2009
5:16 pm

Paul,

Don’t go there man.

It’s an evil place.

Ray

May 28th, 2009
5:18 pm

Dost thou doubt the mighty Manteats to be the Jesus of Today?

Wouldn’t it be alot easier on everyone if the self-fluffed Republicans just went ahead and came out of the closet?

Greg Mendel

May 28th, 2009
5:19 pm

“l’enfer, c’est les autres”

mike

May 28th, 2009
5:22 pm

Joey –

“No, it is your blind, unfailing love and loyality to anything Democrat or Progressive.”

Personally, I could care less if Jay or his counterpart, Rush are loyal to their respective parties. It is their need to demonize those who don’t share their views that is annoying. That and their hypocrisy.

AmVet

May 28th, 2009
5:24 pm

JB, I believe you are wrong in calling them conservatives in the first place.

They can no more explain in detail what conservatism is than they can the workings of a nuclear reactor. They’ve been duped for so long they are truly clueless.

Don’t believe me? Just ask. Guaranteed to raise a smile.

From what I can see, one of the nearly innumerable problems for the neo-conned these days is what I call the ShiteHead Factor.

I remember when the Republicans were merely a nuisance. That many of us just laughed at. Nixon’s hit lists. Ronnie and Eddie’s Wars on Drugs and Wars on Pornography and Wars on…

Yes they too were unrealistically intolerant aholes. And inept to be sure, but not completely craven, utterly corrupt, bunglers of the first degree and worst of all, deadly, as are the bulk of the leaders in this commandeered and miserable new-age bassackwards GOP.

And when you ask the faithful why they have gotten such a historic asswhooping over the past few years, you get some empty rhetoric about not being fiscally conservative (???), but nothing more.

So good Republicans, why have you lost the White House? AND 60 out of 64 US Congressional seats? AND numerous Governorships since 2006?

There must be plenty of reasons, no?

The ShiteHead Factor alone can’t explain drubbings like that.

Here’s a hint, there was a time in this country when Republican attempts to control Americans’ behavior through fear, intimidation and outdated doctrines and institutions, worked.

No more.

Deal with it losers…

Paul

May 28th, 2009
5:25 pm

Midori

[[what am I going to do with you?]]

Take off the cuffs?

getalife

Think I’ll just read and lurk there for a bit.

mike

May 28th, 2009
5:29 pm

Ray –

So Republicans are immoral, unpatriotic AND gay?

Did you guys leave anything else out?

getalife

May 28th, 2009
5:30 pm

Paul,

It’s like reading a hundred Andy’s.

Ew.

Buy Danish fits in well over there.

mike

May 28th, 2009
5:32 pm

getalife –

“It’s like reading a hundred Andy’s.”

Which is really reading a hundred getalifes. You guys are two sides of the same coin.

AmVet

May 28th, 2009
5:33 pm

JB, I believe you are wrong in calling them conservatives in the first place.

They can no more explain in detail what conservatism is than they can the workings of a nuclear reactor. They’ve been duped for so long they are truly clueless.

Don’t believe me? Just ask. Guaranteed to raise a smile.

From what I can see, one of the nearly innumerable problems for the neo-conned these days is what I call the Shi*head Factor.

I remember when the Republicans were merely a nuisance. That many of us just laughed at. Nixon’s hit lists. Ronnie and Eddie’s Wars on Drugs and Wars on Pornography and Wars on…

Yes they too were unrealistically intolerant a-holes. And inept to be sure, but not completely craven, utterly corrupt, bunglers of the first degree and worst of all, deadly, as are the bulk of the leaders in this commandeered and miserable new-age bassackwards GOP.

And when you ask the faithful why they have gotten such a historic azzwhooping over the past few years, you get some empty rhetoric about not being fiscally conservative (???), but nothing more.

So good Republicans, why have you lost the White House? AND 60 out of 64 US Congressional seats? AND numerous Governorships since 2006?

There must be plenty of reasons, no?

The Shi*head Factor alone can’t explain drubbings like that.

Here’s a hint, there was a time in this country when Republican attempts to control Americans’ behavior through fear, intimidation and outdated doctrines and institutions, worked.

No more.

Deal with it losers…

Cuz

May 28th, 2009
5:34 pm

I don’t understand demonization in the first place. I have my opinion. Others such as getalife are probably my polar opposite. I have no problem him expressing his opinion. It makes me wonder what drives a person to think that if I disagree with him, I have a mental disorder. I do not tow the Republican party line. I have way to many Libertarian views along with my Conservative views. If your view differs with mine, it makes you no less an American nor does it mean you have a mental disorder. I may think you are wrong, but I believe you have that right to be wrong. And that is just my opinion. In your opinion, you would be right and I would be wrong. How boring is it when everyone agrees with you/me.

Jay

May 28th, 2009
5:35 pm

Why Mike, you’re not seriously comparing what I say about conservatives to what Rush says about liberals, are you?

Because, if you WERE to do such a thing, I might have to question just how even-handed you really are. And I know how much you’d hate that.

I do disagree with conservatives on most points and I do say so. But to suggest that my disagreements and criticism rise to anything approaching the level of Limbaugh is laughable.

And Joey, I hardly hate or despise or even disrepect conservatives. I just disagree with them.

That’s OK, isn’t it? I’m not hurting your feelings?

I Report :-) / You Whine :-(

May 28th, 2009
5:36 pm

Moderates are described as traitors to the party and the cause, and they are told, in effect, to love the party or leave it.

Powell ENDORSED Obozo, voted for him even, a traitor in the truest sense of the word.

Perhaps I missed something?

You’re still an unAmerican little toady, for example-

And what is unpatriotic about opposing a war that in the long term will weaken our country militarily, economically, politically and morally, as the invasion of Iraq has done?

A war that has made America stronger and safer, has stabilized the Middle East and made Iraq a nation of the world instead of a nation against the world, bookman treasons against our brave soldiers when he knows full well it is democrats and Obozo who are “destroying the economy.”

Just like I told you they would.

I rule.

Will Rogers

May 28th, 2009
5:36 pm

I don’t belong to an organized party, I am a Democrat.

getalife

May 28th, 2009
5:36 pm

Lets test your theory Cuz.

Do you think torture and rape are wrong?

Jay

May 28th, 2009
5:36 pm

And again gentlemen, as always, feel free to post evidence to support your contentions, if you can find it.

Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

May 28th, 2009
5:41 pm

One would hope that a wise conservative man with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a liberal, gay, or affirmative action junkie who hasn’t lived that life.”

As such, I do solemnly declare that the liberals, gays, affirmative action junkies, and everyone with BDS is unpatriotic.

Dave R

May 28th, 2009
5:43 pm

Methinks Ambling Veterinarian has gotten into the schnapps a little early this evening with that last post.

I Report :-) / You Whine :-(

May 28th, 2009
5:45 pm

You pop into the blog late, you see the little tiny box on the scroll bar and you think, man, do I have a lot of reading to do, but then you realize that it is just two posts from Mad Harris, a couple of AmVet canned rants and a whole bunch of mikey’s pointless admonishments, and then presto, you’re finished.

I Report :-) / You Whine :-(

May 28th, 2009
5:49 pm

Our soldier’s believed in their mission in Iraq, volunteers all, many made the ultimate sacrifice, willingly, because they could see with their own eyes the good we are doing there and then along comes some democrat party propaganda hack demeaning that mission, for political purposes no less, and he wants evidence?

I Report :-) / You Whine :-(

May 28th, 2009
5:51 pm

Why, bookman, does Obozo continue to pour men and treasure down the Iraq rathole, could you please explain?

mike

May 28th, 2009
5:54 pm

Jay –

“Why Mike, you’re not seriously comparing what I say about conservatives to what Rush says about liberals, are you?”

Well, in some ways, yes. Your post makes the contention that it is a characteristic of conservatives to question one’s patriotism instead of it being a common tactic of angry partisans of both stripes. Likewise with your concerns about calling folks “racist”. Like Rush, you want to paint those who don’t share your views as being intellectually and morally flawed.

“Because, if you WERE to do such a thing, I might have to question just how even-handed you really are. And I know how much you’d hate that.”

For the umpteenth time, I don’t consider myself even-handed. I am a conservative. I just recognize that stereotyping those who don’t share my views is the height of intellectual dishonesty. You are good at point it our when conservatives do that, but don’t want to acknowledge that may liberals use the very same tactics you decry.

“I do disagree with conservatives on most points and I do say so. But to suggest that my disagreements and criticism rise to anything approaching the level of Limbaugh is laughable.”

Well, most of the liberals here would agree with you. They also think that Olbermann has any high ground over Hannity and that Maher has any high ground over Coulter. Many of us see you all in the same boat. For example, you are rightfully upset over the accusations that Sotomayor is a racist, yet you had no problem making the case that Westmoreland’s “uppity” remarks were racist in nature.

BTW: Care to acknowledge my argument (supported by getalife’s comments and a quick googling of “Republicans are racist”) that liberals also use the “unpatriotic” attack against those who don’t share their views?

AmVet

May 28th, 2009
5:55 pm

Sunspotted poosies probably drink schnapps, but not this kid…

mike

May 28th, 2009
5:55 pm

Jay –

“And again gentlemen, as always, feel free to post evidence to support your contentions, if you can find it.”

I always do. I posted a ton of links of liberals accusing conservatives of being unpatriotic, but they are “awaiting moderation”.