Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by grover
This is exactly your point with this thread grover. It isn't fair for either of us to be generalized like we are. You're thread only mentions how liberals are unfairly judged, but it's just as prevalent on the other side.
Originally posted by Moonsouljah
These moderators are really breaking canollis lately, sheesh!
Originally posted by grover
Originally posted by mattifikation
I need only point out threads like this one, and the inevitable "Ten myths progressives believe about conservatives" that will be popping up any minute now (this exact same thing happened before on ATS.
During the election I posted several threads on the same subjects... one for Obama, one for McCain in an attempt at fairness.
Originally posted by mattifikation
I'm sure this post will go unanswered, in a sea of liberal vs. conservative trash talking that serves no point whatsoever except to further the agendas of those behind the conspiracy to rule the world.
someone who is not against change per say but rather is someone who would rather that change be taken slowly and judicially with a focus on preserving what we already have.
Movement Conservatism is a self-serving and socially malevolent cabal of mega-corporations, right-wing think tanks in Washington, their archconservative foundation benefactors, and an intricate nationwide network of linkages in the communications media, religion, higher education, and law. It has been called the "conservative labyrinth," and common to all its elements is a theology of "free markets," an ideology coming to full bloom in the Administration of George W. Bush. Today, the G.O.P. seeks to impose it at every turn.
Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.
Originally posted by Irish M1ck
I bet we have more to agree on than disagree, but due to the party system, no one would ever know that.
The G.O.P. was once a respectable political party, giving voice to cautious citizens who saw much to protect in the affairs of the nation. The Democratic Party offered a forum for less sanguine citizens to disagree and seek reform, and in the healthy conflict between the two a robust democracy served the nation well.
Neither party was rigidly ideological, driven passionately to impose a set of beliefs, as the Taliban, say, imposed Islam in prewar Afghanistan. Both parties respected democracy.
Except in their Orwellian rhetoric, the Republicans no longer do, and the G.O.P. has withdrawn from serving the nation at large. About 25 years ago it became the political arm of "Movement Conservatism," and today it promotes not the general welfare but the commercial interests of corporate enterprise...
...Taking shape in the late '70's, Movement Conservatism became a sort of economic Taliban, absolutist in conviction, righteous, and anxious to impose its ideology on the American people. It found its vehicle in the presidential candidacy and election of Ronald Reagan, and over the next eight years Movement Conservatism and the Republican Party came to be coterminous.
There was little resistance. Since the Republican Party traditionally has been the party of commerce and finance, Movement Conservatism had only to sell an appealing ideology to a receptive constituency. As the pursuit of "free markets" came to mean "corporate well being," the transaction was consummated. The Republican Party took on the ideology, and also assumed a commercial function: marketing public policy as a product. It became the G.O.P., Inc., and forfeited its role as a party of the people.
President Reagan's agenda came almost whole-cloth from the Heritage Foundation. His massive tax cut slashed current revenues, but Reagan shoveled trillions of dollars to corporations in the defense industries anyway. In so doing he added twice as much to the national debt as all his predecessors combined, from George Washington to Jimmy Carter.
This was the first shot from the most vicious and despicable weapon in the arsenal of Movement Conservatism: pile more and more indebtedness onto future generations so that debt service increasingly forecloses public expenditures for anything else. The stupendous deficits of George W. Bush preordain a starving public sector for decades to come.
In 1988 the Democrats learned how effectively corporate financing can facilitate television-based campaigns. A lot of money can make Willy Horton a household name. And so by 1992, dominated by the Democratic Leadership Council, the Democrats veered sharply toward the center, seeking corporate financing for the Clinton campaign. Clinton delivered, enthusiastically embracing "free trade," a global version of the free market fantasy. The Democrats were flirting with their own transformation to corporate status, and they continued in 2000, running free-trader Al Gore and Joe Lieberman, once chairman of the DLC.
Ralph Nader's Greens couldn't see much distinction between the G.O.P., Inc., and its Democratic emulators, and they high-centered the election. The Supreme Court, sporting a couple of Movement Conservatives on the bench, did the rest.
Some Democrats today are openly critical of a centrist, corporate-friendly stance for the party. Others still cling to it: the threat remains.
Originally posted by grover.
It is more than anything Movement Conservatism that has fostered the poisoning the well as it were of honest and open political discourse with loaded hate filled rhetoric to convince people to essentially vote against their own best interests.
[edit on 26-11-2008 by grover]