What has become of conservatism?

[Spectral]

Yes and theyre all basically terrible hypocrits. William F Buckley was probably the most intellectual out of all of them and he was a doofus. I suspect he would be opposed to trump or at least the trump campaign. George will was. The establishment rag "national review" came out against trump.

If your conclusion winds up being that all of your opponents are stupid hypocrites, you're probably failing to understand them.

[Kraenen]

Yes and theyre all basically terrible hypocrits. William F Buckley was probably the most intellectual out of all of them and he was a doofus. I suspect he would be opposed to trump or at least the trump campaign. George will was. The establishment rag "national review" came out against trump.

I don't see your point, conservative intellectuals are coming out against Trump... and is that a bad thing? Buckley wasn't a doofus; that's not even a criticism of his opinions it's just a throwaway to excuse yourself from understanding him.

[Spectral]

Until Conservatives can simply DROP or ACCEPT certain facts of life, I will always assume what I stated in my previous post.

Get over Gay People.

Stop worrying about brown people.

No your Christian god isn't our overlord.

What compromises do you offer to conservatives on these? For example, I would wager that there are a non-trivial number of conservatives that would get over gay people (at least in policy) if they were offered the concession that the left would get over their obsession with assault rifles. I don't really know what you mean by "get over brown people" when it comes to policy, but as linked, there are drawbacks to immigration that are worth pointing out.

In any case, the United States now has a nominally conservative President that basically is over gay people. He's a New York City guy in origin and inclination and has already said that gay marriage is a settled issue. As near as I can tell, he's not really much of a Christian and at most believes in some squishy way rather than genuinely being particularly interested in the religion.

- - - Updated - - -

Oxy, it isn't the fact that I "think" it...

You watch your politicians. These are the people who are saying these things... Your people considered TED CRUZ as a candidate. Now i'm sorry, I am well aware that not "ALL" conservatives are like this... But there is only One Tea Party... only one Donald Trump.... only one KKK....

How does the saying go... The Majority represents the Whole? Or something?

My point is... you may SAY that not all conservatives are how I think they are, but they certainly aren't being vocal enough to convince me.

That is the problem.

The KKK has ~5,000 members. That they get treated like a significant force worth mentioning is a great illustration of how fundamentally dishonest much of the media is. Paying significant attention to a group with no power or influence is intended to create the mood affiliation that Trump's totally like the KKK despite there not being any evidence that he's ever had anything positive to say about them.

When it comes down to basic human rights issues... you bet your ass i'm liberal. I think every Black Muslim Westerner should be able to walk down the street smoking pot and not having to fear for his life by fucking rednecks. This isn't hard to understand. This isn't even a "conservative" request.

Are there a lot of Black Muslim Westerners being attacked by rednecks? Is there a government policy to not prosecute those rednecks or anyone in power suggesting that attacking random Muslims is acceptable?

[Shadowferal]

Conservative intellectuals is exactly what begs the question, "What happened to Conservatism?" Because "Neo-Conservatism" is what happened and they seem to revel in their ignorance and wallow in anti-intellectualism. When son of William F. Buckley, Christopher wrote (in full humor) Sorry, Dad, I'm Voting for Obama it excoriated (the neo-cons, and their abject stupidity and the direction the GOP went.

[Kraenen]

Conservative intellectuals is exactly what begs the question, "What happened to Conservatism?" Because "Neo-Conservatism" is what happened and they seem to revel in their ignorance and wallow in anti-intellectualism. When son of William F. Buckley, Christopher wrote (in full humor) Sorry, Dad, I'm Voting for Obama it excoriated (the neo-cons, and their abject stupidity and the direction the GOP went.

In that case you'd have to conclude conservatives went democrat, and the GOP went reactionary

[Caolela]

Really, considering Byrd a racist because he was a member of the KKK in the past is "disingenuous?" I don't think so. If you killed someone 50 years ago, you are still a murderer to me. He may have set aside his membership, but I think he probably still felt the same way he did back then, he just knew he had to hide it.

I know there are a million examples of duplicity (and more everyday), he is just an easy one to explain. If he was a republican, he would have never made it to office. He would have gotten hammered by the left's "racist, bigot, blah, blah" rhetoric each and everyday until he went away.

He didn't "murder" anyone, not that we know of anyway. Anyone can check his record in the Congress that for decades was basically the opposite of "probably still felt the same way he did back then". Your feels don't count.

Byrd's 1960's KKK days are a non-issue and anyway - he's been dead for over 5 years. It's just another of the canards the GOPers like to roll out as a deflection. There are a lot of current Repubs that are anti-minority, far worse than Byrd ever was, and that if you're so worried about it you should be opposing them. But you don't because they have an 'R' after their names.

- - - Updated - - -

You need to prove that they can read Corbyn's mind. He hasn't professed anything that would indicate he would 'defend capitalist rule' at any point, in fact his political stance is the pretty much the opposite of that.


They made the statement, you used them as a source, YOU need to provide the evidence if you want your source to be regarded as legit, there should be no expectation on me to supply it.

Now you're arguing just to argue, as you've done with many others in this thread but it's not worth my time. Even a hermit knows what a politician says and what they do are often two different things, including Corbyn. I don't "need" to prove anything because it's all in the public record.

[Shadowferal]

In that case you'd have to conclude conservatives went democrat, and the GOP went reactionary

Some democrats went "blue dog," until the idiocy "neo-liberal" became a thing...and true liberalism was only mouthed by stalwarts such as Bernie Sanders the "lion of liberalism" Kennedy. (Elizabeth Warren came up to the plate later)

Until Campaign Finance Reform become a reality, I have little faith these days in politics.

[Theodarzna]

What compromises do you offer to conservatives on these? For example, I would wager that there are a non-trivial number of conservatives that would get over gay people (at least in policy) if they were offered the concession that the left would get over their obsession with assault rifles. I don't really know what you mean by "get over brown people" when it comes to policy, but as linked, there are drawbacks to immigration that are worth pointing out.

In any case, the United States now has a nominally conservative President that basically is over gay people. He's a New York City guy in origin and inclination and has already said that gay marriage is a settled issue. As near as I can tell, he's not really much of a Christian and at most believes in some squishy way rather than genuinely being particularly interested in the religion.

I think a better compromise might be that religious institutions don't have to necessarily change against their will.

The harassment of Christian or other religious business owners to enforce conformity was rather atrocious.

[Kraenen]

Some democrats went "blue dog," until the idiocy "neo-liberal" became a thing...and true liberalism was only mouthed by stalwarts such as Bernie Sanders the "lion of liberalism" Kennedy. (Elizabeth Warren came up to the plate later)

Until Campaign Finance Reform become a reality, I have little faith these days in politics.

If true liberalism is Bernie Sanders I think your compass is just a bit off.

[Theodarzna]

Conservative intellectuals is exactly what begs the question, "What happened to Conservatism?" Because "Neo-Conservatism" is what happened and they seem to revel in their ignorance and wallow in anti-intellectualism. When son of William F. Buckley, Christopher wrote (in full humor) Sorry, Dad, I'm Voting for Obama it excoriated (the neo-cons, and their abject stupidity and the direction the GOP went.

And with great Irony, Obama continued the Neo-Con project and got us into as many conflicts as Bush, if not more. AND was given a Nobel Peace Prize to boot.

[Shadowferal]

If true liberalism is Bernie Sanders I think your compass is just a bit off.

That's the best we have today.

And with great Irony, Obama continued the Neo-Con project and got us into as many conflicts as Bush, if not more. AND was given a Nobel Peace Prize to boot.

He was given that Nobel prize just after his win in '08. Ostensibly for one simple reason; He wasn't GWB.

[Spectral]

I think a better compromise might be that religious institutions don't have to necessarily change against their will.

The harassment of Christian or other religious business owners to enforce conformity was rather atrocious.

Yeah, that'd certainly be more specific to the issue.

As a quick tale on this one, I recall arguing vehemently with people who were against gay marriage - I'm very pro-gay marriage and this seems like a no brainer to me from a moral and legal standpoint (I think Loving v. Virginia provides an airtight case on the matter). One of the things that I recall these people telling me is, "we're fighting because the left will never keep taking ground if we agree to move on this"; at the time, I thought they were being incredibly silly and couldn't imagine what more the pro-gay side (my side) would even be trying to fight for - we just want gay marriage and equal rights, right? That'll be it, we get our win, stop arguing that stupid point, and that'll be that.

Whoo boy was I ever wrong. In my lack of perspective, I had failed to realize that progressivism as an ideology isn't about having a principled end goal and being satisfied once you're there, it's about continuing to push and take ground always and forever. So once gay marriage is passed, celebration lasts about 11 seconds before there was an immediate shift of the goalposts from legally allowing it to legally enforcing support of it by people that want to be left alone. My own libertarian bent made me fail to conceive that we'd move from permissiveness to forcefulness and that no only would we go that direction, anyone that didn't support it would now be considered anti-LGBT.

So, yeah, I can now see why conservatives dig in their heels. When your opponent's idea of "compromise" is that you just keep shifting towards their view forever, that ain't compromise and there's nothing in it for conservatives to play along.

[Theodarzna]

Yeah, that'd certainly be more specific to the issue.

As a quick tale on this one, I recall arguing vehemently with people who were against gay marriage - I'm very pro-gay marriage and this seems like a no brainer to me from a moral and legal standpoint (I think Loving v. Virginia provides an airtight case on the matter). One of the things that I recall these people telling me is, "we're fighting because the left will never keep taking ground if we agree to move on this"; at the time, I thought they were being incredibly silly and couldn't imagine what more the pro-gay side (my side) would even be trying to fight for - we just want gay marriage and equal rights, right? That'll be it, we get our win, stop arguing that stupid point, and that'll be that.

Whoo boy was I ever wrong. In my lack of perspective, I had failed to realize that progressivism as an ideology isn't about having a principled end goal and being satisfied once you're there, it's about continuing to push and take ground always and forever. So once gay marriage is passed, celebration lasts about 11 seconds before there was an immediate shift of the goalposts from legally allowing it to legally enforcing support of it by people that want to be left alone. My own libertarian bent made me fail to conceive that we'd move from permissiveness to forcefulness and that no only would we go that direction, anyone that didn't support it would now be considered anti-LGBT.

So, yeah, I can now see why conservatives dig in their heels. When your opponent's idea of "compromise" is that you just keep shifting towards their view forever, that ain't compromise and there's nothing in it for conservatives to play along.

That was the biggest concern really, even my step-father voiced in that way, that churches would be forced to perform ceremonies ect back when the Prop 8 vote came up. The SocJus crowd intepreted legalized gay marriage as open season for the full LGBTQA#%^ ideas that come out of your average sociology department.

[ro9ue]

The biggest problem in this country is that no one really knows what they are talking about. Their goal isn't reason or a debate of ideas, it's to demonize the fuck out of the other side.

Here's that 'Satan-like' figure Steve Bannon:



/sarcasm


Dude is totally reasonable and seems like a half-decent guy. Want to refute his ideas? Go for it. Don't paint him as a Nazi.

[Glorious Leader]

If your conclusion winds up being that all of your opponents are stupid hypocrites, you're probably failing to understand them.

Not all and not every position. I find agreement with folks like ron paul on foreign affairs and marijuana but i dont care to support koch brother politicis just because it comes with a bong. I oppose them.


Ill give George Will some credit. A couple years back on cnn he let something slip. He said elections were not about weteher or.not we would be ruled by elites but rather which elites would rule. That is as telling an insigjt into the conservative mind as any other. To be fair im sure i could find "centrist" or so called "new democrats" who shared but that just shows how the overton window has moved to the right.

[Kalis]

Now you're arguing just to argue, as you've done with many others in this thread but it's not worth my time. Even a hermit knows what a politician says and what they do are often two different things, including Corbyn. I don't "need" to prove anything because it's all in the public record.

Oh please, you've used a source that made absolutely ridiculous claims, that only people with zero knowledge of the British political and legal systems might believe, then when asked to defend your source you've deflected away from their claim and somehow tried to make out the onus is on me to disprove their nonsense.

What next? Using Stormfront as evidence of an international Jewish conspiracy?

[downnola]

It's so funny when you mention the duplicity of the media and then someone says "what about Fox news?" Every major media outlet and all the major networks and papers favor the Dems. Fox News, Limbaugh (is he even on regular radio anymore, wasn't that like 10 years ago?).

There's a reason people bring up Fox; your conspiracy theory conveniently ignores the existence and popularity of conservative media outlets. It's also self-defeating to double down on claiming every media outlet is in the bag for the Democrats, and then demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about in the next sentence.

I think Fox has been killing CNN in ratings because:
1) it is the only place for people to go to get an alternate view (so they get most viewers on that side) while there are so many networks that they essentially divide the viewership
2) people are seeing through the duplicity and don't want it anymore. Seriously, I tried to watch CNN's coverage of the Dem convention and they show Wolf Blitzer at the convention dancing with a glass of wine in his hand. That's "journalism" nowadays for CNN?

Generally speaking, Fox has always killed CNN in ratings for one simple reason: CNN sucks.

Although, it is impressive in a way how Fox has managed to dominate cable news since the early 2000's. Fox was one of the first cable networks that realized consumers weren't all that interested in seeing real news; they wanted feel-good stories that matched their values and scandals that massaged their moral outrage glands. Let's not forget the entertaining pundits who provided reassurance that you weren't American unless you were a flag worshiping, God-fearing defender of the words Merry Christmas. Fox knows how to market to their audience quite well. There's a reason Bill O'Reilly has his Talking Point Memos on the screen and reads along with them; the age demographics that watch him most likely can't a hear a fucking word he's saying.

I honestly can't blame Fox either, they responded to demand that nobody else was meeting. America had just come off a brutally long decade of scandals and frenzy: The O.J Trial, Clinton sex scandals and defamation of women, the school shooting at Columbine and the effect it had on schools everywhere, etc. America was like a junkie in desperate need of some smack.

And then it was September 11, 2001.

Fox stepped up to the plate and delivered what people wanted to hear back in those days: America's got this. It's a good thing too because not many stations were interested in saying it at that time. We had great educators and free thinkers like bell hooks, who passive-aggressively accused the government of state terrorism less than a month after the planes hit. And who could forget my favorite ethically blind lefty Michael Moore, who claimed the "insurgents" in Iraq--the same people who used IEDs on our soldiers and blew up Shia Mosques--were comparable to the Minutemen during the American Revolution. It's anyone's guess if Moore ever figured out that he was praising Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, but I digress. I honestly liked Fox back then, not so much for the opinion stuff, but because they had some decent reporting, and still do to be completely honest.

Regardless, many will pretend that it wasn't all the rage back then to whine about the duplicity of media and blame the Military Complex, Capitalism, and the Right for it. I remember very well what news was like before and after 9/11, and it's hilarious to me how the tin-foil hats reassign ownership of the shadowy cabal that "controls" the mainstream media when their party loses favor. Then again, all one has to do is "swallow the red pill" to realize how the theory of "globalist control" is just a watered down substitute for something much more intellectually pathetic and sinister, and can be found on the far left and the far right.

2) I think Trump's actual vision was a lot more clear.

Yeah, real crystal.

3) All I heard from Hillary was: Trump says bad things, he said bad things 25 years ago, yadda, yadda, yadda. I want a no fly zone over Syria (which even Gorbachev (a noble peace prize winner) said would cause a war with Russia and I plan to allow in more refugees. Besides that, continue Obama's policies. Oh, I am a champion of women.

I can see why you like Trump so much. He, like you did here, injects unintelligibility into the conversation, rather than making a coherent argument and supporting it with rational thought.

As for research, I chase ever story back to the facts. I am different from your average news consumer. I don't follow a million stories around the net. I pick one I really care about it and get the real facts on it by "chasing" it back to the source. Every story is based on a set of "facts." Then the media gets their hands on it and it gets all twisted. I try to get back to those facts, read them and make mine own take on it. That's why I am independent (and have never voted Dem or Pub in a major election). When you take out the media spin, most of the actual facts make the two parties look really, really bad and inept.

You sound like a solid objective thinker. A real Sherlock Holmes, if you will.

It's a shame you didn't chase down the facts on that dancing Wolf Blitzer video you mentioned as evidence of liberal media bias earlier. You would have realized that an American conservative writer of all people, debunked that fatuous "story" months ago.

https://spectator.org/drudge-gets-wo...nn-party-too/#

[Caolela]

Oh please, you've used a source that made absolutely ridiculous claims, that only people with zero knowledge of the British political and legal systems might believe, then when asked to defend your source you've deflected away from their claim and somehow tried to make out the onus is on me to disprove their nonsense.

What next? Using Stormfront as evidence of an international Jewish conspiracy?

You're the one who claimed the WSWS article is wrong. It isn't, and you haven't shown that it is, only pulled opinions out of the air that Corbyn or 'X' didn't say this or did say that. The evidence however is what the actual results have been of their policies and in that regard the article is correct.

Repeating your nonsense does not make it any less nonsensical. But I'm sure you'll keep trying.

A couple of issues with the article were pointed out in post #172.

The last paragraph "Labour agrees with the Conservatives that under conditions of mounting social and political crisis, the state must be strengthened in order to defend capitalist rule." They can't possibly know that Labour supported it 'in order to defend capitalist rule', it's something they invented, Corbyn would never say anything like that.

Again, whether Corbyn has ever said something like that explicitly or not, he certainly has not shown any results to the contrary, which is in effect supporting the status quo.

Not hard to see if you have more than 4 functioning brain cells left.

Infracted - Flaming

[Kalis]

You're the one who claimed the WSWS article is wrong. It isn't, and you haven't shown that it is, only pulled opinions out of the air that Corbyn or 'X' didn't say this or did say that. The evidence however is what the actual results have been of their policies and in that regard the article is correct.

Repeating your nonsense does not make it any less nonsensical. But I'm sure you'll keep trying.

I gave three examples in their article that were wrong, one of them required them to be mind readers and the ability to mind read is not an actual thing, they also made a claim that millions of people will be hacked, without any evidence that the legislation allows that, let alone that it will happen.

You expected me to accept the article on face value and when I didn't (and in fact showed they weren't likely due to how impractical their claims are) you wanted me to prove that their outlandish claims were accurate by researching things that I know don't exist.

Again, whether Corbyn has ever said something like that explicitly or not, he certainly has not shown any results to the contrary, which is in effect supporting the status quo.

His voting history, which is a matter of public record, doesn't support that assertion.

Not hard to see if you have more than 4 functioning brain cells left.

You apparently didn't realise that his voting record was highlighted during his leadership contest.

[Powerogue]

What really is scary is that these days, conservatives more and more feel at peace with expressing their true selves. In the past year alone, I have run into people who I ... THOUGHT I knew... but discovered that their views actually quite disgusting. How interesting that only in this year does it seem that they are feeling empowered more than ever to simply skip passed all of the fluff, and get down to grass tax.

- I don't like black people!
- Being gay should be illegal!
- Christian prayer should be mandatory in school!
- Selling sex toys is against the law!

All of the above are conservative ideas and ideas that have been expressed within this past year.

I had just been blaming it on the internet making everyone more vocal about their crazier ideas but you might be onto something. I think it's just having a significant amount of power in government makes certain people not feel like they have to hide how horrible they are because the extremists think "our side is winning!" and boast about that.