Conservative Dis-information Campaign Exposed

When I see liberals, progressives quoting Rachel Maddow on how conservatives are intrusive, I tend to look over my shoulder to see if Candid Camera is filming me.

Look, there are two sides. Call them liberal/conservative or progressive/Tea Party or left/right.

We all see problems in the world. We actually notice the same problems.

The difference is that liberal-progressives see the solution being MORE government.

Where as true conservatives see solutions in LESS government involvement.
QED

reply to post by beezzer


That's an inaccurate description of the reality of conservative actions, which are clearly extremely pro-government whenever it's convenient (just as liberal politicians act like they're conservatives whenever they please). It's also inaccurate to assume that the entire left is pro-government. That is a feature of the moderate American left. For one example, political anarchism is not the most extreme form of conservative theory, is it -- it is a liberal advocation of no government at all. At the same time, it's completely impossible for a party to be staunchly, deeply, pro-military-industrial-complex and somehow just as against massive activities on the part of the very entity which owns the military, as conservatives claim they are. So the "QED" you suppose is both erroneous as it stands and incomplete.

reply to post by sepermeru

I think your confusing conservatives with politicians who call themselves conservatives.

As for liberal-progressives, show me ONE, just ONE instance where they think government is too intrusive.

I'll be able, then, to google a response for that (just to save time) where liberal-progressives endorse a larger government role.

Progressives don't apply the individuality, personal responsibility approach to issues. They look to blame, categrize, then create programs that will feed into whatever problem originally arose, then put more tax payer money into it.

Call itwhatever you want to call it, but a rose by any other name . . . . will still look for entitlements.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by sepermeru

 

I think your confusing conservatives with politicians who call themselves conservatives.

As for liberal-progressives, show me ONE, just ONE instance where they think government is too intrusive.

I'll be able, then, to google a response for that (just to save time) where liberal-progressives endorse a larger government role.

Progressives don't apply the individuality, personal responsibility approach to issues. They look to blame, categrize, then create programs that will feed into whatever problem originally arose, then put more tax payer money into it.

Call itwhatever you want to call it, but a rose by any other name . . . . will still look for entitlements.

reply to post by beezzer


I could easily be called an extreme leftist who thinks everyone should own a gun and know how to use it because the last thing we need is for the government to be the only ones armed. I believe the people should control their own lives to the greatest extent possible. And I said larger government is a feature of American moderate left. The problem with this debate, aside from how totally bogus it is in the first place because we're actually very much on the same side against a common enemy, is that it takes place in a weird vacuum where the only political positions in the world are the ones espoused in the rhetoric of a handful of elected politicians in one of many political entities on the planet. The truth is that if you look outside that familiar sphere for a minute, you will find many prominent leftists who are very anti-government. Just not in the United States mainstream.

reply to post by sepermeru

Name 3.

(according to to your info you live in Cali. If your a conservative in disguise, cough twice )

reply to post by beezzer


I think it amusing that in making the effort to demonstrate that there are big-government hypocrites who call themselves 'conservatives' (essentially liberals), she makes the case for LIMITED-Leave-Me-Alone government.

What an atrocity of arrogance Maddow is...

reply to post by loam


Except at the same time she is making the case for limited government, she is proving that the ones that want limited government aren't conservatives.

Conservatives don't want limited government, they just want government out of what THEY want them to be out of, in all other areas, they love big government.

Conservatives hate things like gay marriage, and so, they want to legislate big government into that by constitutional amendment. Legislating morality is the hallmark of Conservative big government interference into people's lives.

Muslim? Better watch out for Conservatives, if they had their way, the 1st Amendment would be abolished and changed to make sure that being Muslim in this country earned you a quick trip to GITMO and water boarding till you found Christ.

Latino? Better watch out for Conservatives, if they had their way, legal immigrants from south of the boarder would all be forced to wear a little sombrero patch visible at all times. (that way they knew they were legal) otherwise, immediate execution for the rest. (can't have them thar illegal fellers commin back now can we?)

The only small government that Conservatives really want is zero gun control and no taxes.

reply to post by whatukno


I'm just wondering if you could use a broader brush and just call ALL conservatives one name. It'd save you time and trouble typing.

So ALL conservatives believe in this paradigm you espouse?

Then I guess I could say that ALL progressives eschew bathing, working, and when they get preggers, kill all their kids in a state-sponsored abortion clinic.

Works for me.

reply to post by beezzer

I'm just wondering if you could use a broader brush and just call ALL conservatives one name.

I would, but that name would be against the T&C of this site.

reply to post by whatukno


I only starred you because I kinda walked into that one.

All politicians are intruding in our lives. Whether it's a republican and gay marriage or a democrat banning a breed of dog.

And while idiots fight over which one is raping you harder they're all still raping you.

I'm tired of living like a slave because you all have your heads up your asses.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Aww, c'mon! Lighten up! We argue, we debate, we learn. It's not as if our conversations are going to alter the course of the world.
Although. . . . .
A while back I used to write (under a name other than beezzer, it actually was the same as my divers license name) and actually had a state senator call me at home to argue a point I made in an article.

So writing, meandering through the verbal forests of thought, do have an impact. Even things as seemingly inane as posts on ATS.

Peace.

Many politicians who claim to be conservatives aren't really conservatives...just like many democrats aren't really democrats.

In the end, they all suck on the sweet tit of their corporate sponsors and don't give a flying # about the citizens. That's why they talk about "making cuts" while giving giant US corporations money just so they stay in the US...even if those very same companies create most of the jobs abroad. Why? Because the politicians who could close that loophole are also being paid by the very same companies.

Money rules the world...

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

Aww, c'mon! Lighten up!

I can't lighten up when this one time around in life I was born into authoritarian tyranny only to die in authoritarian tyranny. Maybe I can move to Antarctica to get a little liberty but I'm sure in a few weeks some nation will swoop in to valiantly rescue me from my plight or tackle and arrest me for violating some ancient Empire law.

All I want is to live. Build my homestead and farm until I die from whatever.

Instead I have to earn a wage to pay a tax, license my pet, ask permission to put up a shed, dig a well, shoot a weasel, catch a fish, I even have to ask permission to get goddamn married to the woman I love.

My parents should have told me when I was kid that liberty is a lie and I'll be asking permission to take a crap or a breath for the rest of my life.

Given certain taxes, fees, regulations and bureaucracies I'll even have to ask permission to die.

Every last one of us are little more than sharecroppers living in their masters shack.

And this is the "freest nation on earth". It's #ing pitiful.

reply to post by beezzer


Hey, if you don't believe me, do your own research. I'm happy to provide cites when I'm claiming anything remotely controversial, but this is very basic understanding of the global political reality here.And I can't just list names, since we already know you haven't heard of them. I'd have to go copy and paste for you or write my own mini biographies and so on. But why should I have to prove to you that anarchism exists or is leftist? You do know that its origins have nothing to do with dopey Anonymous kids pranking around in funny masks, right?

But I'll give you one name to start with: Noam Chomsky. He's so left he's practically synonymous with radical leftists, and he's also notoriously so anti-government he literally isn't allowed in some countries. Did you know that -- do you know anything about what he actually writes and says, or have you just vaguely heard the name and think of him as...what, exactly? Someone who radically agitates for the state to have more power? Yeah....to say the very least, he's not. Friend, it's not that I'm a confused conservative at all -- it's that the very idea of 'conservative' and 'liberal' has been hijacked and distorted beyond recognition by the American mainstream media and political system. Yet people here swallow it completely whole. Most would be completely shocked to find out that there's a large contingency of leftists who are pro-gun like myself -- whole large swathes of leftist ideology and thought which look almost identical to a Tea Party pamphlet.

Seriously, where the heck did you get this idea that all liberals, rather than the American moderate liberal party as represented by the rhetoric of the Democrats, are pro-government? Have you never heard of a hippie?

Originally posted by sepermeru
Seriously, where the heck did you get this idea that all liberals, rather than the American moderate liberal party as represented by the rhetoric of the Democrats, are pro-government? Have you never heard of a hippie?

edit on 31-3-2011 by sepermeru because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-3-2011 by sepermeru because: (no reason given)

Yes, I've heard of hippies. Got to see them protest my father when he returned from Vietnam.
Don't get me started.

In my local Tea Party group there are "liberals" who don't see the need for big government, so perhaps, in the future, I'll use the term "prgressive" when describing big government advocates.

reply to post by whatukno

You're not sure? How many mosques have been protested against? Conservatives using their 1st Amendment rights to try and oppress the 1st Amendment religious rights of others.

You're obviously horridly confused.

When I tell you: "Hey, man, you should really try and quit wasting money on smoking and drinking when you've got a family and kids" - I'm using my first-amendment right to free-speech. I am advising you on whether or not to do something, or otherwise voicing my opinion.

I didn't go to my representative and say: "This guy is drinking and smoking and annoying me. Make a law that bans both."

Similarly, protesting a mosque is simply people of that region telling other people they are not pleased with their actions. That's part of living in a society that allows free speech. If you can't handle the majority of people telling you they do not approve... sounds like a personal problem to me.

There is, however, a key difference between telling someone their actions are not appreciated and harassment. There is also a difference between protesting and petitioning for legislation. I can hold a peaceful protest outside of the local Victoria's Secret for marketing push-up-bras for eight year olds (-really? ... do they have anything to push up?-). So long as we're not threatening to harm employees or throwing Molotov cocktails, it's all good and is not evoking the powers of government.

How about Peter King's little McCarthyesque "hearings" where he basically said that all Muslims were terrorists bent on destroying the United States.

What about it? Obama seems to be under the impression we have 57 states, stated in an interview while campaigning for president that the actions he just took a few weeks ago would be considered unconstitutional, and believes there is a point where someone "has enough money." I would say the same about all liberals, but one of the most vehemently aligned with the democrat party is one of our local judges (and a personal friend). She has no problem with money and owning it - at least for her personally (she doesn't seem to be too concerned with how much other people are making, either). She's aware that there are 50 states, plus the District of Columbia, and is not too fond of Obama anyway.

We'll not debate Islamic teachings, as neither of us are Muslim and there is no reliable means of determining a "good" Muslim from an "extremist" Muslim that will blow themselves up in a market place. You have to cede that point.

Meanwhile conservative candidates tout their Christianness and use terminology and policies trying to turn this country into a Christian theocracy.

I question your understanding of government models - namely, the difference between a republic and a theocracy. Some 80% of Americans claim to be of some Christian affiliation. You're not going to have a democratic republic in such an environment that is devoid of Christian influence.

That said - I will cede the point that religious conservatives (often lumped in with political conservatives, because the two side together on many other issues) tend to be far too willing to enact progressive legislation that restricts behavior based on moral concerns. Examples would include prohibition, prostitution bans, 'sin' taxes, etc. This would also include more macroscopic and hot-button issues such as bans on homosexual marriage and abortion.

The fact is, as long as there are federal hollidays recognizing only Christian holidays the federal government is in violation of the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment.

You're confused as to the cause and effect. A federal holiday is not a celebration or endorsement. Christmas, for example, is a holiday celebrated both religiously and traditionally (even by the non-devout, in some way or another) by vast sums of the population. Even Wal-Mart closes on Christmas - and it's not because they are honoring Christ, or even their employees (they could find the people willing to work that day) - it's that it is such a slow business day that there is really no point in opening until five in the evening and catching the after-hours market segment.

Many Federal holidays are done out of function as opposed to honor.

If Conservatives had their way, we would have witch burnings in central park every Sunday.

Yes, you liberals are preventing the wanton destruction of human beings across the globe.

Where would we be without your bleeding-heart, paranoid delusions to warn us of other people.

Have you actually stopped to listen to yourself? I'll point out two very relevant points you just made:

How about Peter King's little McCarthyesque "hearings" where he basically said that all Muslims were terrorists bent on destroying the United States.

If Conservatives had their way, we would have witch burnings in central park every Sunday.

So, all conservatives are on trial and guilty of genocide?

Hello, Mr. Pot; meet Mr. Kettle.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by sepermeru
Seriously, where the heck did you get this idea that all liberals, rather than the American moderate liberal party as represented by the rhetoric of the Democrats, are pro-government? Have you never heard of a hippie?

edit on 31-3-2011 by sepermeru because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-3-2011 by sepermeru because: (no reason given)

Yes, I've heard of hippies. Got to see them protest my father when he returned from Vietnam.
Don't get me started.

In my local Tea Party group there are "liberals" who don't see the need for big government, so perhaps, in the future, I'll use the term "prgressive" when describing big government advocates.

Fair enough. I promise you, those might seem like fake liberals to you, but to me it's these contemptible Democrats who are the phonies -- and the anti-government, pro-liberty flavor of leftist thought has a long and noble history which goes back far before these traitorous fools in both parties staged their invisible coup to overthrow the people's ability to self-govern.

I probably do dislike the Democrats slightly more than the Republicans, if only because the Republicans are at least more honest about their motivations, but I could never be a conservative because my social values are extremely leftist. I do admit that I might be the only person on the planet who defends guns, cars and Wal-mart at the same time as thinking, for example, that anyone who complains about "political correctness" is a hypocrite if they'd object to me calling their mother a nasty name to her face. (Not to mention uninformed -- for every one example of some liberal fool getting all unhinged over some innocent connotation, there are literally dozens more examples of radical religious types getting even more unhinged over failure to follow THEIR demands. Why is it not considered "PC" for a Christian to demand everybody respect their religion, but it is "PC out of control man!!!" when a Muslim does the same thing? Can anyone explain this to me? In another thread so I stop spamming this one?)

reply to post by whatukno

Originally posted by whatukno
...she is proving that the ones that want limited government aren't conservatives.

You mean she is saying that some who SAY they want limited government aren't really conservatives.

Real conservatives do happen to exist, though.

For example, you're speaking to one....and I have no issues with gay marriage or Muslims.

reply to post by Aim64C

I didn't go to my representative and say: "This guy is drinking and smoking and annoying me. Make a law that bans both."

But conservatives are doing precisely that.

Why are several states trying to pass anti sharia laws? Why can't they try to pass anti religious law laws? Oh that's right, because they want to oppress Muslims only and not Christian Cannon Law which they often use in drafting legislation in this country. You know, like anti gay marriage bills, and anti abortion bills.

I question your understanding of government models - namely, the difference between a republic and a theocracy. Some 80% of Americans claim to be of some Christian affiliation. You're not going to have a democratic republic in such an environment that is devoid of Christian influence.

So basically you are saying here that too bad for those of us that don't believe in Christ, we must be forced into a Christian Theocracy? I think it's fine that people have a Christian affiliation. (although I believe that 90% of these people are Westboro Baptist Church, or Army of God supporters and potential radical Christians intent on blowing up things like abortion clinics or protesting military funerals. Just being Fair and Balanced) But why should we be forced to live under barbaric Cannon Law?

Until the Conservative movement marginalizes their radical Christian element, I can't see my way into endorsing any of their ideals. As long as Conservatives allow the Radical Christian element to rule them like they do, there can be no trusting them.

reply to post by loam

You mean she is saying that some who SAY they want limited government aren't really conservatives.

Real conservatives do happen to exist, though.

For example, you're speaking to one....and I have no issues with gay marriage or Muslims.

As long as the conservative movement is controlled by it's radical Christian members, that is the message they are sending out, and if conservatives don't speak out about these issues constantly every single day every time they can (like they demand Muslims do), they therefore must condone them, and agree with them.