reply to post by grover
Sorry if I wasn't clear, Grover, it's no longer 'my' party. I left the republican party 6 years ago or so, after a 40-odd year association, and
want nothing more to do with their fascist/ police state ways. Patriot Act pushed me over the edge. That's not 'limited government' in my book.
Every act of theirs since then has been down hill.
|
reply to post by nenothtu
Good for you. It is refreshing to come across a conservative here on ATS who can use their brains without mush loosebowels telling them what to
think.
It is not like some would have you think that all liberals are bad and all conservatives are good and vice versa... we both love our mutual country
and want to see it prosper... we want to see it safe and want to see it as a force of good in the world... we just see different ways of going about
it... that is all.
The Democrats moved to the left middle years ago and there really are few if any far left members in office... Bernie Saunders not withstanding... as
far as I am concerned Paul Wellstone was the last legitimate far left member of congress.
In contrast the Republicans have been taken over by a cabal referred to as movement conservatives who as you noted are really not conservatives but
economic nihilists... they have joined forces with the religious right and their policies give lie to the claim that Republicans stand for individual
responsiblity... as the real conservative, Barry Goldwater argued in his later years that both abortion and gay issues had no business in conservative
policy because they were individual matters... in trying to impose their viewpoint on others they deny others their right of individual
repsonsiblity.
The knee jerk totalarism inherent in the patriot act is the same sort of thing in national security... we already had plenty of laws and procedures in
place to provide national security we just needed to enforce.
Movement conservatism and Republicans who insist that the party needs to go further right will bury the elephant yet...
When we sit down as rational, thinking, reasoning individuals we find we have far more common ground than divisions between us.
|
It's a little late to be commenting on this post, since by now it's clear Achmadinejad has hijacked the election and put himself back in office. I
don't believe the Iranian people as a whole elected him, but it looks like they're stuck with him again.
I don't know if one can classify those who were rooting for Achmadinejad as either conservatives or neocons specifically. There are just some
people--like Rush--who hate Obama so much they would rather see the hardliner in office than to see anything that might validate Obama's efforts to
use diplomacy before bullets. That's some extreme hatred.
I do believe, by the way, that RR Conservative was correct in saying the original neocons were disillusioned leftists who then became gung-ho
conservatives. The neo-cons' belief that democracy should be exported abroad wherever and however possible is not, I think, shared by a lot of
conservatives.
I read the Huff Post and find it a valuable source of information, regardless of its leftist leanings. All news outlets have their political biases
one way or another--you can't get away from them. With all due respect to the source, though, I think the Post might be spinning somewhat.
I sincerely hope the extreme Obama haters are no more representative of conservatism than Stalin was of socialism and that no American in his or her
right mind really wants to see what we're apparently going to get--Achmadinejad holding onto his power.
|
|
Originally posted by Rockstrongo37
LOL www.huffingtonpost.com ....enough said. This is so far from the truth it's pathetic. As a "rightwing" type myself, I certianly do NOT hope
that he wins. The greatest accomplishment of that election is that peace can be brought to Iran by someone who wants to live at peace with the west.
I ABSOLUTELY agree. Asking for a perspective of how a conservative feels from the huffington post is like asking Jeffrey Dahmer to stand in for a
week at a day care. The results are never good but I hear the baby back ribs rock!
|
Before you pweople continue to mis-label Neo-conservatism, you should be aware of the origins of "Neocons":
Michael Lind, a self-described former neoconservative, explained:
Neoconservatism... originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy,
Johnson, Humphrey and Henry ('Scoop') Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves 'paleoliberals.' [After the end of the Cold War]... many
'paleoliberals' drifted back to the Democratic center... Today's neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition.
Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent.
The forerunners of neoconservatism were often liberals or socialists who strongly supported the Allied cause in World War II, and who were influenced
by the Great Depression-era ideas of the New Deal, trade unionism, and Trotskyism, particularly those who followed the political ideas of Max
Shachtman."
So, now you liberals can consider yourselves NeoCons, as the Neocon policies are on the Left, not on the right.
By the way, most people, mostly Conservatives (82% of Americans) believe in a Christian God. There are VERY few Americans on "The Right", and the
rest are right smack in the middle, believing in the ideas and ideals that America was founded upon.
|
