You want to know why Conservatives have an image problem?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   
The opposition to health care reform is being engineered by corporations with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. I am disappointed that so many of us have been successfully manipulated, to the point they become irrational, threatening and extremist.

You have to ask yourself, who benefits? Who has something to lose? They have grown rich while countless Americans go without basic health care - services that are considered the minimum standard in other developed nations.




posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChristinaA
You have to ask yourself, who benefits? Who has something to lose?


Who benefits? Ask yourself this: who is getting 30 million or more new customers from this healthcare bill? That's who is going to benefit from this.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by vor78

Originally posted by ChristinaA
You have to ask yourself, who benefits? Who has something to lose?


Who benefits? Ask yourself this: who is getting 30 million or more new customers from this healthcare bill? That's who is going to benefit from this.


But those are 30 million customers that they don't want, because they are not profitable enough. Plus the reforms will require insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions. Then there is the public option - another competitor. These things adversely affect profitability. But if you think the reforms will not help us, that is your right.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by ChristinaA]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by shrike071
 


What did you expect from uneducated twits? Civil behavior?



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   
I dont understand how you can take a snapshot and paint the whole movement the same? All this shows me is how weak your postion is. It is almost like racism where you pick one thing and label the group by that standard. I believe the country is shifting back to a more conservative way of thinking and it scares you.

I have to wonder where these threads come from it is almost like they are generated dis-information. Not to say you are a paid poster or a political shill but sometimes where there is smoke---



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by shrike071

Originally posted by Carseller4
One is a derogatory term and the other is proper english.


Sorry - you're mistaken. Since the dawn of our republic, it has been the Republican party and the Democratic party.


The dawn of the United States republic dates back to September 17, 1787 when the Constitution for the United States of America was adopted at the Philadelphia Convention. At that time there was neither a Republican party nor a Democratic party. Indeed, there were no true political parties at this time, although there was what would become known as the Federalist party which was staunchly opposed by what would become known as the Anti-Federalist party. The Federalist party experienced early success in the "dawn" of the republic but saw its demise in 1801 with the election of Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican. The Democratic-Republicans were also known as the Republicans and was founded by both Jefferson and James Madison in 1792 and from 1800 to 1824 was the dominant political party until it split into competing factions, one of which became the Democratic party that we know today.

In today's vernacular the Democratic party is often referred to as the party of Jefferson while the Republican party is often referred to as the party of Lincoln. While Jefferson often referred to his own party as the Republican party he also would refer to it as the Democratic party. When, in 1824, the Democratic-Republican party split into different factions, as a war of personalities emerged between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson who were both running for president. While both men viewed themselves as "Republicans", the split between them came down to the "Adams men" and the Jacksonian men".

The Jacksonian's, at their first national convention, referred to themselves as the "Republican party" which was in 1832 but by the mid 1800's they began referring to themselves as the "Democratic party". Henry Clay, who had been a staunch supporter of John Quincy Adams, which became known as the Adams/Clay alliance formed the basis of what would be called the "National Republican party", but after Jackson defeated Clay in the 1832 Presidential election, that party was absorbed into the "Whig party".

It was not until 1854 that fiercely anti-slave politicos formed what is now known as the "Republican party." So, while 1792, that being the year that the Democratic-Republican party, sometimes known as the "Republican party" and at other times known as the "Democratic party", was just five years later than the forming of the U.S. republic it could be argued that it was indeed the "dawn" of that republic. However, at that time there were not so much Democrats and Republicans as there were Federalists, Anti-Federalists and Democratic-Republicans.

Perhaps I am just quibbling, but it is worth noting, in my humble opinion, that there has been a long rich history to political parties in the U.S. and that this richness has not necessarily been for the betterment of the people. Indeed, George Washington, considered to be a Federalist, in his farewell address made a dire warning about the dangers of political parties and urged the people to avoid the seductions and inevitable pitfalls that come with them. It is too bad we the people did not heed his warnings as there is certainly no Constitutional requirement that mandates political parties and in this modern age where both parties clearly favor expansion of government it is dubious exactly what is meant by the "opposing political party".



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by shrike071
 


Are you a DEMOCRAT or are you a Democratic? BTW I am not an apologist for the REPUBLICAN Party, or the Republicanic party either.

The above illustrates why the correct way to describe the party is the DEMOCRAT Party.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Because they are manipulated easily -

By BUSH's admin and by letters from a "107 year old WWI and II veteran"


He's a patriot!!!



we are screwed



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Subjective Truth
I dont understand how you can take a snapshot and paint the whole movement the same? All this shows me is how weak your postion is. It is almost like racism where you pick one thing and label the group by that standard. I believe the country is shifting back to a more conservative way of thinking and it scares you.




No I bet it is because he has experienced enough political hypocrisy to last his life...
Well thats me...

I am scared because you guys just experienced this last decade and have done ZERO reflection. The conservative block and their sway at the ballot box got this disaster started. I do not see any grand insight having been learned, business as usual.

But you guys are sure good at whisper and innuendo campaigns

That should fix things





[edit on 30-11-2009 by Janky Red]

[edit on 30-11-2009 by Janky Red]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by shrike071
Sorry - you're mistaken. Since the dawn of our republic, it has been the Republican party and the Democratic party. To refer to the Dems as the "Democrat Party" is, and I'll state it again - disrespectful and rude, despite what the leaders of the Republican party (Rush and Beck) tell you.



Tsk Tsk .....calling Democratic Party members "Dems"???? Such derogatory terms. That's pretty rude of you. You must be one of "Dem" huh?



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Buuuuut what about the leftist labor protests, environmental protests, and immigration protests? Their behavior is far more embarrassing, yet they have no image problems in the eye of the proles .. why?



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Hey Shrike, you are on quite a roll!

Keep getting them "Manners and Decorum" Warnings, and it might be you that has an image problem.


Obama has really been a gift to Conservatives. He beat up the moderate McCain, whose loss was for the better. Now that the nation is getting a look at a hardcore liberal, they will choose better next time, starting in 2010. Obama is single-handidly destroying the Democrat Party!

[edit on 3-12-2009 by Carseller4]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
Hey Shrike, you are on quite a roll!

Keep getting them "Manners and Decorum" Warnings, and it might be you that has an image problem.


[edit on 3-12-2009 by Carseller4]


Listen - I don't tolerate stupidity. This is why I chose to leave the Republican party, and why posts about the proper use of a word in a thread that's devoted to something else drive me batsh*t insane. I would love to debate you on the proper use of the label according to academic and historical data - but I don't want to do it here, in this thread.

If you want to engage me, do it in the proper thread, in the proper forum and send me a link. I'll dive right in.

Continue to post here, with the same unrelated crap you Teabaggers have been using, and you do nothing for the discussion.

What you are doing, however, is showing that you condone the behavior in the video. Both by ignoring the original post, and engaging in the exact same tactics in this thread.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Conservatives are Americas taliban. Same type of mentality and ignorance.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phlegmi
Conservatives are Americas taliban. Same type of mentality and ignorance.


Okay, here we have an excellent example of left wing ignorance. It is doubtful you know enough enough about the Taliban to make such a comparison. You certainly know enough to capitalize the word American but not enough, apparently, to capitalize the word Taliban. It is this whole stupid divisiveness between left and right and liberals and conservatives that serves no purpose other than to add to the divisiveness.

There is too often a pithy smug attitude from anti-conservatives that presumes to be of a superior sort of intellect, but is nothing more than a radical left wing dogma that buys into the notion that anybody that disagrees with them is not intelligent enough to understand their presumed wisdom. There are a vast majority of conservatives that are so because they endeavor to conserve the Constitution for the United States of America.

They do not adopt a conservative attitude of that Constitution out of any ignorance but do so out of a profound respect for a document that was designed specifically to keep in check the natural proclivity of expanding government. They become conservatives because they hope to keep in check those politicos who endeavor to take too liberal of view of that Constitution and their choice to conserve that Constitution is not based in any animosity towards liberalism, it is based on the understanding that allowing their government to continue down a progressive road of intrusive legislation, operating outside the jurisdictional boundaries of their office and abrogating and derogating the rights of individuals is an unacceptable form of governance.

If that is what you believe to be ignorance then it is your right to hold that belief and even your right to voice it in this thread, and the true American conservative will fight with undying passion and zeal to ensure you continue to have that right. This might explain your sardonic vitriolic attack and gross generalization of conservatives since they would be so willing to defend your right to be sardonic and vitriolic and make gross generalizations, but then again that might just be indicative of self loathing on your part. Who knows, I personally know as much about you as I do the Taliban, but at least I am willing to own up to my ignorance of the Taliban but will not accept your definition of conservative as any source of wisdom or erudite intellectualism.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   
The only reply your posts deserves from me is that taliban is not worthy of the time it takes me to press the shift key.


[edit on 4-12-2009 by Phlegmi]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
lets try to realize that "conservatism" at its core has good, solid, fundamental beliefs. I have no problem wtih "conservatism"

Just like i have no problem with "Islam"

But just like Islam, conservatism has a bunch of ultra radical idiots that give it a bad name.

So does conservatism have an image problem? No.

It has a screening problem by letting any dumb ass willing to shred their dignity through the door.

People like Rush Limbaugh & Sean Hannity are *NOT* conservatives (by the true definition of conservatism)

I just want to make sure we all understand that difference.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Snarf

People like Rush Limbaugh & Sean Hannity are *NOT* conservatives (by the true definition of conservatism)

I just want to make sure we all understand that difference.


What exactly is your definition of Conservative?

Second line for wishing a Merry Christmas!

[edit on 4-12-2009 by pavil]



  exclusive video


new topics
 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join