What small 'c' conservative values do you hold?

[Stinky The Clown]

I know the word 'conservative' brings up all sorts of ire for most of us. I know that for me it is almost on a par with any profanity. But that's for what has been the most recent incarnation of the word.

So, for the sake of this discussion, can we agree that the word 'conservative' has nothing at all to do with the current neocon regime ... or the religiously insane. Let's consider it as just another word that is part of honest discoursum politicus.

As an example of what I mean, I hold that the government needs to be as small as it can be while still doing the job that the people need it to do. On its face, that's a conservative value, isn't it? Where I think conservatives and liberals part ways in an *honest* discussion is not the need for small government, it is in the definition of 'doing the job the people need it to do.'

I don't think there's a liberal alive that wants high taxes for the sake of high taxes. I know I don't. I actually favor tax cuts and I bet you do, too. Again, the difference between us and conservatives is to whom we give cuts and to whom we give increases. I want the tax code to work as a way to encourage a rising tide for the least among us while reigning in the do-nothing-for-the-common-weal idle rich and the predators.

I hold similar views with respect to matters of national defense, privacy, social issues, and on and on and on.

What values do you hold that seem to also be small 'c' conservative values and how would you articulate them?

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. I was in favor of welfare reform

and still think it was a good idea.

[silverojo]

34. Yeah, right

Starve the poor so other programs can take priority. That's one major beef I have with Clinton.

Example....

I'm applying for disability (3 years later, I'm still waiting to be accepted). Meanwhile, it'd kind of help to have some money, since I can't go out and earn it. So I went to the welfare office.

I'm told that, since I was responsible enough not to have dropped babies left and right (I'm not a parent), that I'm not eligible for welfare. Single people used to be, but thanks to Bill Clinton, we're not, anymore.

Irresponsible women who have three or four kids by different fathers can get it, though. REAL welfare reform would have mandated that the govt. will help with the kids you already have (or if you're currently pregnant). If you're stupid enough to have another kid afterward, YOU'RE paying for it. As it is, Clinton made non-stop pregnancy a career choice, while disabled single people are told, "That's tough!"

Oh, yeah...we can get SOME help. General assistance, which amounts to $173/month for only 18 months. After that, you can't get that "windfall" for 18 months. Then you can get it for another 18 months. (In this world, $173 doesn't go far, you know.) Finally, if you get on disability, you have to PAY IT BACK. So, in other words, you didn't get any help at all...just a puny loan.

Meanwhile, the brood mares are wallowing in welfare.

Hmm...rewarding women for giving birth repeatedly...sounds like a Republican policy to me....

[bread_and_roses]

53. "Brood mares wallowing in welfare" ?????

That post is both factually ignorant and demonetizing of the poor.

The benefit level you describe sounds like NY's; I checked your profile to see if that was your location but you've disabled it for some reason.

First, you say that you are not eligible for "welfare" but then that you are getting "General Assistance." "General Assistance" IS "welfare."

Secondly, your statements about mother's on welfare betray both an abysmal ignorance about the "Welfare" system both before and after the misnamed "reform," which exponentially increased the hardship of an already inadequate and demeaning system.

Third, your statements betray abysmal ignorance about benefit levels for women with children: for instance, that the oh so generous increase for a child might just pay for a month's diapers, but not much else.

Fourth, your statements betray both abysmal ignorance and prejudice about mother's forced to seek assistance from welfare, their birthrate, level of participation in the workforce, reasons for having children, etc.

I am sorry that you are being forced to suffer without sufficient assistance, that is wrong. It is unfortunate that you seem to choose to savage those who are in similar straits for different reasons instead of allying with them in common cause.

[proud2BlibKansan]

59. I said "was"

cause I do have a problem with some of the drastic cuts that affect people like you described. But we had generations of families who had never worked, sat at home, watched TV all day (yes, the ones I knew had cable) and did absolutely nothing to contribute to society or to improve their own lives. It was a cycle that had to stop.

And TANF (what they call welfare now) is TEMPORARY Aid to Needy Families. So no, the 'brood mares' are not wallowing in welfare. Once their time is up, it's up, regardless of how many more kids they have.

[klyon]

97. Social Security is where you need to go.

Or is that where you applied and are waiting?

[Cybergata]

70. As a Teacher...

I can attest that welfare reform has made a huge underclass of children. The largest percent of people living in poverty in this country are our children. I have students with a single mother who work at two jobs, and they still have difficulty meeting their needs. Worse part of the situation, we have children with no parents since mommy is working all the time. There also is no childcare that these women can afford, so we have children with no adult supervision out of school. I had so many students this past year who were hungry for adult care and attention. I blame welfare reform for all of this.

[Kixel]

80. That's where reform needs to come in...

The people who are working their asses off and just need a little help have the hardest time getting it. Help someone with food stamps or child care, that could be a huge aide for someone struggling. The scales of determining who needs help needs to be changed-it's the whole concept of had up versus hand out.

I knew a woman who was told she should quit her part time job to be eligible for the benefits. That's just an idiotic thought process. Obviously, she wanted to do what she could to support her family. Help her rather than giving her everything. The working poor needs help-and they deserve it.

[Stargazer99]

83. welfare

Apparently you've never been in real trouble financially. Mother's should be home with their children, not working unless it can be worked out for the children. Funny how well-to-do mothers are told they should be home but welfare mother's should be working. Children of the poor have less protection than those who have money. It is just the same old pattern of centuries...classes. The only difference is that the culturally stupid don't see it.

[Cybergata]

89. Thank you, thank you, thank you...

I've seen the effects first hand, and I see the results of mother's working all the time to support their families. I give these women a lot of credit. They try hard, they work hard, and they even show up on parents night to thank us for our help. They are the TOO under-appreciate people in our society.

[nytemare]

2. Less government waste, hands off privacy.

Clinton did a lot for these things. He cut the size of government, actually had a balanced budget. He lowered the defecit, started to slow down the national debt.

How * got his party to think a tax cut for the wealthy in a time of war was a good idea, I will never know.

[grasswire]

3. I want to means test Medicare....

....just as we means test for food stamps, college loans, and a dozen other programs. There's no reason why a well-situated person with plenty of resources for private insurance should have direct medical costs paid by taxpayers.

And I support the second amendment, although I would never have a gun myself.

[nickshepDEM]

9. Do the wealthy not pay into the system?

[grasswire]

21. ah, the old chestnut

Sure. Return to them their Medicare premiums they've paid, with five percent interest, on age 70. We means test for Medicaid, so we should also means test for Medicare.

If you can explain to me why taxpayers should pay the medical bills of people who have plenty of money to buy private insurance, I'll consider the argument.

[Stargazer99]

85. Poor babies they pay more taxes

Does it dawn on the poor high paying taxes that they GET MORE OUT OF THE SYSTEM ALSO? I'm so damn tired of those who have nice homes, plenty to eat, medical/dental care, etc whining...try living on minimum wage then you can talk to me. I just hear some woman on radio whine about the taxes and they have three children to send through college. Poor baby, try sending one kid to college on minimum wage...then you have a real reason to whine. What makes her think she is entitled to more than others? The capitalist system?

[nickshepDEM]

87. ...

[ProudDad]

91. Crap!!!

I want Medicare FOR ALL.

Single Payer Health Care IS a conservative value...

[Viva_La_Revolution]

4. fiscal conservative

don't spend what you don't have.

socially, I'm a flaming hippie.

[Mz Pip]

5. Fiscal responsibility

Time to end corporate welfare.

Walk softly and carry a big stick was really a good idea in terms of defense policy. Too bad we stomp around the world in large noisy boots ultimately just pissing people off and accomplishing very little.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Seabiscuit]

28. Fiscal Responsibility isn't Republican or conservative. In fact,

it has always been Republicans who have voted against fiscal responsibility; their definition differs from ours: they mean cut off any "welfare" money to anyone who isn't rich, and give all "welfare" money to the rich.

This has always been the theme of every Republican administration. They have *ALWAYS* left us with a huge deficit.

The "liberal" agenda is to balance the budget, avoid unnecessary wars, and create a welfare state that cares for the neediest as well as the middle class. The rich don't need the government's help.

[Daniel K]

37. Nevertheless

"Fiscal conservatism" is a value that we should all consider important. This nation needs to learn to save money for those days when it will be needed. Instead we spend like there is no tomorrow and run up massive debt, both as a nation and as individuals.

It can't last.

[Seabiscuit]

56. Agreed. Fiscal conservatism is a liberal value.

No business could survive if run the way this government is.

[hughee99]

96. Fiscal conservatism depends on the issue being discussed...

Both repukes and progressives can be considered fiscally conservative when it comes to a program that they believe the government doesn't need to be doing.

The OP had a pretty good comment on this:
"Where I think conservatives and liberals part ways in an *honest* discussion is not the need for small government, it is in the definition of 'doing the job the people need it to do.'"

[Mz Pip]

57. What they say

versus what they do.

Republicans talk about fiscal conservatism, but in reality they pass out pork to the red state special interest groups like it was candy.

Time to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.


Mz Pip
:dem:

[ProudDad]

92. "Fiscal Reponsibility"

is just another bullshit repuke talking point.

"To each according to need, from each according to ability"

or as Kennedy said,

"Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country."

(but only if one defines "country" as your fellow human beings -- not some bullshit lines on a map!)

[BlueCaliDem]

6. I support ALL the Amendments to the Constitution, *including* the 2nd...

...although I abhor all firearms.

I am anti-abortion, although I'm for a woman's right to choose.

I am a Christian, and believe my faith in the Judeo-Christian teachings are good and enriching, although I don't go to church, and I do believe in science and evolution.

I don't believe in pre-marital sex, although I'm for my 14 year young daughter's choice to take contraceptives (because you never know).

I pertinently don't believe in divorce (which ties in with my Christian faith).

I believe in personal responsibility, and the responsibility to educate oneself to ensure it, but I believe in helping those in need without conditions, and preaching.

[WyLoochka]

7. Is "large goverment' a

liberal value? What liberal ever ran a campaign saying "I want your vote so I can go to Washington and make the government a whole lot bigger?"

Nearly everyone, if you asked them, would probably say pretty much what you have said - smallest government possible that would get the job done - because it is common sense. So I don't think we should deem it a conservative value, specifically.

[Stinky The Clown]

10. I understand what you're saying ... and in fact ....

.... you make the point I was getting to with ths thread. Most of what the conservatives hold dear is also dear to us.

They've simply done a far better job of owning the framing, if not the issues.

It also points up how we can honestly run on a platform that can sound conservative but still be completely liberal. All we need to do is get away from the idiot wedge issues and get to the big picture stuff.

[Nite Owl]

8. Being fiscally responsible

we should not waste tax payors money and we shouldn't overtax people either. The difference between how it is interpreted by the right wing is as a liberal I believe in a sense of fairness, those who earn most pay most and money should be used directly for the people who need it most and for the good of all. Cut out all the loopholes that give the wealthy a chance to escape their responsibility to society. People should work usless disabled so welfare reform could have been a good thing but there were no provisions for the single mothers who need child care etc. so they missed the boat on that one.

[melnjones]

11. Personally, I'm pro-life...

I just think the repubs are idiots in how they go about it. Ideally, I'd love to see abortion made illegal except for rape/incest/danger to mother's life, but it's not realistic, especially not right now. I believe life begins when the fertilized egg attaches to the uterus (making the morning after pill a wonderful option). I wish soooo much that the repubs would focus on making partial-birth abortion illegal and just leave the other stuff alone!

Since I don't quite fit into the pro-life or pro-choice crowds, I call myself pro-reality :-)

[Stargazer99]

86. So you think you're god

Some religions do not believe life is until birth, legally if she is lucky a woman can obtain an abortion or the morning after pill. To insist that others follow what you believe makes me think some people have set themselves up as god. When Viagra is covered under insurance and birth control pills have not been shows the nastiness conservatives have toward women. On top of that conservatives whine about welfare after they insist women carry to term. Nothing like stomping on your water hose and then wondering why no water is coming out!

[melnjones]

95. I resent such a comment...

Have you ever seen me on here touting pro-life crap? I am very simpathetic to the pro-choice population and I do not argue with them. Ever. I was simply stating my personal opinions in a thread in which that was the purpose. I do not think outlawing abortion in our country is a solution (in an ideal perfect world it would be great because there wouldn't be a NEED for abortion, and I realize fully that my personal opinions are based on religious beliefs and therefore I separate them from what I think our country should be doing. The one and only thing I do agree with the religious right on is that late term (after the pregnancy is 6 months along) partial birth abortions should not be an option unless the mother's life is in danger or it's a case of rape or incest, and my reasoning there is that at 6 months there is a decent chance that the baby could live outside the mother's womb (albeit with medical support). And even there, you don't see me making a huge deal about it. Really, I agree with everything you just posted except the statement that I must think I am god. No, I do not think I am god and I don't appreciate being told that.

edited to lower angry tone of response :-)

[nickshepDEM]

12. My list...

First, I agree 100% with husb2sparkly - "I hold that the government needs to be as small as it can be while still doing the job that the people need it to do."

2. I support the second amendment; however, I believe gun control should be a very local issue. Preferably dealt with by local county and city governments.

3. I wouldnt mind a national sales tax, just as long as items like food, prescription drugs, and other necessities were exempt.

4. I generally support free trade.

5. Support reducing taxes on capital gains and dividends, because in reality its no long just the welathy who are investing for discretionary income and retirement.

Im sure there are more, but for now thats all I can think of.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. You know you're bound to take some shit for number 3 .....

.... a national sales tax is pretty regressive, dontcha think?

Local gun control is a point on which you and I agree. The problem is that gun rights is, currently, a federal issue. I honestly think we can win on a plank that holds the authority to make local gun laws can be delegated to the states (at least) or to the local level, so long as they minimally respect federal law.

[rsr1771]

16. i support conservative values

in that im for smaller government, a limited executive and for state's rights. Unfortunatley state's rights got a bad rap because for a long time state's right was just code for denying blacks basic rights. But issues like physician-assisted suicide, gay marriage, drug legalization and abortion should be, I think, state issues because that is what the US Constitution requires. The Feds now get involved in almost every issue and that is not, I believe, how the original framers wanted things.

[Stinky The Clown]

18. You're right

Your guys have gotten the feds involved in waaaaaaay more than the framers intended. Surely the framers never envisioned the Schindler family's daughter's travails.

Welcome to DU, by the way.

[bread_and_roses]

54. How can there be "State's Rights" on Constitutional issues?

So to the extent that the issues you use as examples involve the Bill of Rights, it seems to me that they do not involve "State's Rights" but rather individual liberties protected by the Constitution.

"State's Rights" is STILL a code for the "right" to abrogate the Constitutional Rights of some.

[High Plains]

68. States' rights is being used in a progressive way, too.

12 states have medical marijuana laws. Is it not their right to refuse to be as dunderheaded as the federal government on this issue?

Sadly, given the makeup of the Supreme Court, I think many of us will be relying on our state constitions to protect our rights. Things have changed. The federal government used to protect us. Now the question is, who will protect us from the federal government?

[Solon]

29. Prepare to get slammed...

3. I wouldnt mind a national sales tax, just as long as items like food, prescription drugs, and other necessities were exempt.

First things first, there is NO way in HELL that we could afford a National Sales Tax on any "frivolous" goods in this country. You mention exemptions for a lot of stuff, and I would agree, however, I would include big name purchases(appliances, cars, etc.) as also considered necessities for living in this country. In other words, with unless that sales tax is at like 80%, you CANNOT practically fund a government with it.

4. I generally support free trade.

My question is this regarding this position, is, do you support "free" trade as practiced NOW under NAFTA/WTO/IMF rules, or are you talking about free trade with reforms?

[Zynx]

58. National Sales tax is a bad idea.

It is regressive as hell.

[Cybergata]

71. Sales tax...

maybe on luxury ticket items, but the poor have a hard enough time meeting their needs, so why add an extra burden.

The way some people speak, I wonder if they have ever met a person struggling with poverty! Yup, everybody in my working class neighborhood are hurt by the taxes on capital gains and dividends! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[RoyGBiv]

14. Conservatives (small "c") are reactionaries ...

By definition, and since that is the case, I reject the premise of the question ...

I hold nothing in common with reactionary philosophy. It is the antithesis of progressivism and liberalism.


The more pertinent question is what values self-described conservatives, who have no idea what that term means in a political context, hold in common with progressive ideals. Study after independent study has found that Americans are, by and large far more liberal than they believe they are, but as you stated elsewhere, "conservatives" have framed the debate and perverted the language to such an extent that many people have come to believe conservatism *is* progressivism while liberalism is the devil.

Take your example of "big government." Who came up with that in the context it is used today? Answer: reactionaries, many of whom were sympathetic to emerging fascist philosophies, used this as a campaign tool against FDR and the various New Deal programs. It was used again against, i.e. in reaction to, LBJ and the Great Society. The claim was that these programs enlarged government to such an extent that it became an intrusive monolith, and reactionary rhetoric was so effective, and the public's ability to think independently so diminished, that, while unable to counter the immediate effect of these programs, at least framed the debate such that those who were most aided by these programs often became their greatest critics, i.e the rural poor, farmers, etc. What was forgotten from the debate was that the programs in question had the long-term intent of *reducing* the need for government control, a somewhat modified form of the "withering away of the state" principle that was at one time the theoretical goal of Marxism.

And that last point gets us to part of the heart of the matter. Leftist, liberal philosophies (not including totalitarian philosophies that play of the people's general benevolent attitudes toward progressive ideals) seek the long-term goal of *less* government intrusion in our lives, not more. Right-wing, conservative philosophies seek total government control in every aspect of our lives. Reactionaries, i.e. conservatives, have flipped the definitions.

The term "newspeak" was intended to describe this process as it was occurring, not appear as a prophecy. Orwell wrote of contemporary issues in a futuristic setting.

I want the language purified and will not take part in perverting it further by pretending I am in any sense, on any issue conservative.

[Stinky The Clown]

17. Well spoken and to the point ...... but ......

... while you are unquestionably correct from an intellectual perspective, your point misses the reality of the discourse in the public square.

[RoyGBiv]

20. I reject that reality ...

...and choose to substitute my own. (Sorry ... been watching the Mythbuster's marathon and have heard that line a hundred times today. I laugh every time.)

My point is that the discourse in the public square needs to be changed. This idea that we must adhere to the reactionary rhetoric in order even to engage in the debate is absurd. It guarantees we will lose, as we have been losing for half a century at least. The people that have changed the world, for good or ill, understood this clearly. They changed the terms, forced others to think as they wanted them to think. The people who have presented radical, revolutionary ideas that became widely accepted never once pretended they were like their opponents, rather that they were utterly different from their opponents, whom they defined in clear, concise terms. They invited people to be or think or showed them how they already thought like them, using their own terms, rather than the other way around.

[Stinky The Clown]

23. I'm gunna go out on a limb here ......

(btw, I'm watching Mythbusters, too ... I like that and the Dirty Jobs marathon they just finished.)

.... anyway .... that limb I'm gonna go out on ......

Again, I agree with your premise, but the people on the other side keep winning because they appeal to the basest of emotions. And while not good from a common societal perspective, it is amazingly effective. People are what they are - self interested and fearful. The other side plays to those emotions and always wins.

I honestly think we can appeal to those same emotions with our contrary views. As but one very tiny example, we can appeal to self interest if we can show that what's good for, say, me, is equally good for, say, you. And also the reverse of that.

But we will not be heard unless we use the shorthand for these self interests - the lexicon that is now in common use.

To end ... I honestly think you and I agree .... we just see the strategy to get there differently.

[RoyGBiv]

31. We agree on the ends ...

It's the means where we differ, which is basically what you said in your last line.

The strategy you support is what brought us Clinton, and while I like Clinton, especially in comparison to the alternative, his political philosophy presented only a minor step forward after two full decades of huge steps backward. (As an aside, Bill Moyers' commentary on the Clinton years is excellent and shows rather clearly that the reactionary politics of Nixon and Reagan only moved into low gear while Clinton himself did nothing, or was prevented from doing anything in the name of political expediency, to counter it.) To put it another way, Clinton's Presidency presented a minor delay in the march of the neo-liberals, which (and this is relevant in this context in more ways than one) are now called neo-conservatives.

It is not a strategy for long-term success.

One counter to my argument here is that the reactionaries have such a firm hold on all aspects of society, everything from the minor elements of our common culture to highest reaches of the power structure, that injecting ourselves into this world is only possible by utilizing their rhetoric as a sort of disguise, which is what I think you suggest while not using those exact words. I think this is a short-term strategy that might work for a brief moment, but it's a trap out of which it is almost impossible to pull ourselves once we've fallen into it. By utilizing the reactionary rhetoric, we become beholden to it, and anything we do that appears, or can be made to appear, counter to that rhetoric will be used, as Newt and the Congress in 1994 used it, to make a huge leap forward for the reactionaries after the small steps of the progressives.

Look at Lenin as an example. While I do not personally endorse all the tactics he used, and would certainly not suggest we model our behavior after him wholesale, I must admit that he was a brilliant manipulator of public opinion, using the reactionary rhetoric against itself rather than embracing it and trying to find common ground. We could learn much from this if we weren't so afraid of the association with something that reactionaries have deemed morally repugnant. He took what believed itself to be a generally conservative society and made it radical and revolutionary on a large scale, i.e. he showed them they were not in fact conservative. And in that sense he didn't change much; he simply brought out and made acceptable those ideas that had been simmering under the surface of Russian society for ages, yet had been supressed by those in power. This analogy will fail under close scrutinty when used in comparison to the United States, but a deep comparison is not the point. The point is simply that society was changed by the use of rhetoric and of the presentation of ideas that were clearly opposed to those advanced by the ruling elite. Lenin and his cohorts in fact created a new language, one still in use today.

And if that is a bad example in your mind, there are countless others all across the political spectrum. Hugo Chavez comes to mind. So does Mandela. Indeed what I'm saying here is, in part, that the reactionaries are master at this game and have been for a long time, and that we are refusing to play the game ourselves, which in fact allows them to succeed. People like Chavez and Lenin have played they game and in so doing changed the basis of power in their societies. That is, they brought forth the fact that the conservatives in those societies were clear *minorities*, that the majority had had its voice stolen from it.

Conservatives and conservative ideals have essentially made many of us believe we are wrong in supporting our own self-interests, not just of the individual but the society as a whole, and they do that by manipulation of the language. I do not believe we can effectively counter that over the long term and in any meaningul way by using that same language.

Small Edit: I'm not trying to be unnecessarily contentious here. This is simply a subject that is very important to me.

[Stinky The Clown]

60. You put out a lot to consider .....

.... and that's what I'll do with it.

I did, at first, take your view as contentious in your first reply, but not now. Thanks for the clarifying explanation.

I am for ***whatever*** gets us back in power and if your way does it, then I can see me supporting it. In that I'm not in the same place as you with repsect to that stratgy, I'm even mnore interested, now, in where you stand on the issues.

[RoyGBiv]

72. I did some considering ...

I did some considering myself, and this thought crossed my mind, inspired in part by your comment previously that you honestly think we agree. I think we agree too, and I think a lot of people agree with us, collectively, that don't realize they do.

When you have the time, read, closely, Marc Antony's speech before the plebeians after the death of Caesar. It explains a lot of what I'm talking about with regard to the use of language and flipping definitions. In college I was both an English and a history major, and interestingly this speech made it into the curriculum for both. It is, of course, a made up speech, but that's beside the point. It is also a masterful use of rhetoric that seeks to turn public opinion by making them understand what they think certain concepts mean are not quite what they have been led to believe. This has relevance both to history and the study of rhetoric as a means of communicating ideas that can be used in the political realm.

The line "Brutus is an honorable man" is offered repeatedly, and each time it is, Antony gives an example that shows just how dishonorable he had become. This is done through the use of cynicism or sarcasm, though not blatant or overbearing. A good speaker cannot tell a person what to believe; he or she can only lead them down a path to understanding what they believe. Antony leads the audience to understand that what they know of honor, as Brutus has defined it, is not in fact honorable.

It would not take too much effort for a skilled rhetorician to use this same mechanism to expose conservatives for what they are, but few on our side of the aisle seem up to the task. Those that are intelligent enough are poor speakers or have a bland public persona and thus cannot capture the public's attention. Someone like Clinton, who fairly oozes charisma, could have done this but didn't. Martin Luther King, Jr. did this well, and of course he was murdered for his success at opening the public's eyes.

Which all goes to show that this is a dangerous game with powerful players. It's not tidy. People will get hurt through their use of words, and people will suffer for exposing the truth. Lies bring us the illusion of safety, and safety is what people want, so we must expose the illusion.

[Stinky The Clown]

73. Mario Cuomo has what it takes

I recall his recent comments (a year or so ago?) in which he cllaed Il Dunce simple. He said it in a way that sounded at first as parise, but in understanding, it was very clear he was calling George a simpleton. The speech was brilliant in its use of shaded meaning and evocative rhetoric ... all delivered ina friendly and seemingly benign manner.

Mario Cuomo should have been president instead of Bill Clinton.

[RoyGBiv]

74. Putin did it recently ...

The English translation was a bit more blunt than what I'm suggesting here, but a Russian friend tells me the words in Russian would have been understood by native speakers as a backhanded slap in the face, akin to something like "Bush is the leader of a democracy and wants to help us achieve democracy in our own society. He has proven his good intentions by bringing democracy to Iraq."

[Stinky The Clown]

79. That was the same tone (but not topic) as Cuomo's speech

And that sort of thing is brilliant when done right.

[pepperbear]

15. I actually do think that pop culture can sometimes go too far....

and this might have a detrimental effect on children, AND I can understand the concern over how corporate America targets kids.

HOWEVER, I think the tools to guide and educate parents are already available and to allow the government to trample on the 1st Amendment just to placate lazy parents who allow the TV and Play Station to babysit their kids is just plain wrong.

It's called an off switch, folks. It's called a book. It's called a jazz or classical record without words at all. It's called watching TV with your kids and making sure they understand and question what they see. It's called your responsibility and no one elses.

It's called talking to your kids yourself..and stop trying to control the lives of others in order to protect them.

[Stinky The Clown]

19. I agree with you ........

.... at least to a point. I'm not sure from your post how far you'd be willing to go down the path you suggest, so that's why I'm saying 'to a point.'

That said, I have long felt that there's too much gratuitous graphics. Graphic violence, graphic sex, graphic language. Don't take that s being a prude. I am as far from prudish as can be imagined. But the gratuitous nature of the graphics may well have some delterious effect on some small part of the population. But more to the point, it is just plain laziness and a cover for lack of intelligence.

I always point to the old Thin Man series of films from the 1930s. These are as funny today as they were in their day. Why? Because they made the sex obvious, but suggested. You know they boinked, but there was no gratuitous titty shot. It wasn't necessary then and it isn't necessary now. It is purely gratuitous.

On the other hand, porn, which is supposedly (and damn well SHOULD be) more restricted than movie house movies, is honestly okay with me.

It is about improving art and raising the intellectual quality of a great art form.

Anyway .... that was a digression from this thread, but yeah ... I agree with you.

[pepperbear]

22. That's what I say.....

I think that it is disingenuous to say that the entertainment industry doesn't target kids. That's the way of thr world and the way of business. It's up to the parent to protect. We have V chips and ratings, warnings and labels already.

There's a great statement I've read that sums it all up for me:

"Your rights end where mine begin."

It's the RW extremists who have forgotten that.

[Solon]

33. Actually, I find your post somewhat ironic...

You mention that Pop Culture goes too far, then mention Jazz as a good alternative, I'm sorry, I laughed. I hope you realize that the exact same criticisms against Pop culture today were levied against the Jazz culture of yesteryear?

Granted you DID say Jazz without words, for many of the themes of those songs haven't changed that much from todays Hip-Hop and Rap or Rock n' Roll, every generation goes through the same stuff, demonization of their artforms, which to be honest, for EVERY generation, 90% of everything was crap. Doesn't matter if its music, from ANY age, books, Movies/TV, or Video Games. But those with lasting power are always of value, it doesn't matter what form they take, though I agree with you wholeheartedly about Government staying out of it.

Its kinda like this, think of art, how many nudes and depictions sex have been painted over the years again? Then look at some of the first photographs of the middle 19th century, again, nudes and sex, the first bona fide porn in fact. Then when, around the beginning of the 20th century, porn again made another breakthrough in motion pictures. Seems to be a theme running through the past 5,000 years and longer for human civilization, don't you think?

Older generations always have complained about the "depravities" of the younger generations, this is simply a fact, old Greek philosophers complained, and todays politicians again complain, its all made up crap, given their generations were equally depraved.

[Totally Committed]

44. I actually agree with this, but never saw it as small "c"

conservative. I raised my kids with love, lots of access to the arts and sciences, active parenting and LIMITS. (Kids need LIMITS to grow up feeling secure and safe). I also believed in family meals as often as possible, and as little tv as possible. We all talked to each other. And we all had definite responsibilities in the household. Kids need to learn reciprocity and gratitude, and doing for others and having others do for them is a good way to instill those things. My sons learned to cook and do laundry as well as their sisters, and the girls took out the trash and did yardwork along with their brothers. I never allowed disrespect among them, either.

Another thing I limited fiercely was junk food. I was a single mom raising 5 kids, and not only was the food at these places bad nutrition, it was expensive for what you got. Trips to McDonald's were limited to rare occasions only, and never for expedience.

Jeez.... I sound like a prig! I'm not. I just wasn't one of those over-indulgent post-hippie parents. My politics are far-left, but I just felt kids needed responsible parenting. Freedom to do as they felt would come as soon as they learned to protect themselves and respect others freedoms as well as their own. I loved them too much to just let this culture raise them instead of me.

TC

[BlueIris]

24. I don't want national health coverage.

At least, not via the so-called socialized medical systems they allegedly still have in New Zealand or Our Neighbor to the North. Nationalized health insurance, sure, that could work. Maybe. And I would pay whatever it took to that up, every cent. But I don't want to see the United States try to adopt a pre-2005 Canada system for this country for various reasons, including the fact that I think it would endanger medical privacy and choice in the worst ways imaginable, and from what I've seen of the way the disaster that is Medicare functions, would be disgustingly inefficient. Not saying I want the current situation to continue as it is, of course, 'cause I worked in that system and it sucks. I just want alternatives that might actually be sustainable and fair.

[Solon]

26. Medicare is inefficient?

Granted they suffer from perpetual budget/coverage problems, but that's more a problem of who we put into government than anything else. Medicare has a TOTAL overhead cost of about 3%, the BEST private system has one that is about 30%, that makes Medicare ten times more EFFICIENT.

[Solon]

25. I don't know, let me see...

I'm for reducing the size of the Federal Budget by cutting the Pentagon budget by about 80-70%(note, this is eliminating pork, NOT reducing soldier's pay or pensions/healthcare), recinding all the Bush Tax cuts, and using THAT to help balance the budget, at the same time, being able to fund a single payer UHC system.

I believe in eliminating loopholes in the tax structure, and making it more progressive. Basically I want it so that the first 60,000 dollars of yearly salary is exempt from federal income taxes, and then raising it by increments of 5% for every 50,000 grand above that, with a total ceiling of about 70% which would be any salary above 700 grand. This would only be temporary till we are able to balance the budget, then the percentage may be reduced later.

I think 2nd Amendment issues are local only.

[SeaNap05]

27. strong national defense

I believe in order to maintain our freedoms as a sovereign nation a strong national defense must be kept.

[Kablooie]

30. I secretly find George Bush to be a great president.

[Goat or Panic]

32. Aren't these liberal values?

I don't know many liberals who are for a weak military, indiscriminate spending and out of control, intrusive government.

I disagree with the too often repeated concept that many of these values are "owned" by conservatives.
Republicans have done a good job defining these ideals as strictly conservative, but the last 5 1/2 years have proved otherwise.


Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to get that abortion I've always wanted. :) :) :) :) :) :)

[nealmhughes]

35. Devotion to the Constitution and Enlightenment ideas of equality.

Not stuffing money down a rat hole to keep the rats out of the house.
Freedom. One man, one vote.
The pursuit of happiness!

[RoyGBiv]

36. Devotion to the Constitution and the Enligtenment ...

These are distinctly liberal positions.

[xchrom]

38. i'm not a conservative period.

how i would spend the money would never ever make a conservative happy.

social security -- save it and expand it.

nationalized healthcare -- bring it on.

education -- cut defence by a third and spend it on schools.

the environment -- can't do enough for it.

abortion on demand.

marriage equality.

now i do believe in a governmental system that constantly and with rather brutal efficiency reevaluates itself for performance -- and tailors itself accordingly --

and that is where the rubber hits the road -- because conservatives would never agree to a self correcting system.
they'd have nothing to bitch about.

[Hosnon]

42. You want the government to evalute its own performance? Please explain

that because I don't see that ever working.

[xchrom]

43. it doesn't work because the system doesn't allow it.

particularly conservatives who don't want to see tax money spent being done effectively.

there is no reason why the government systems cannot be evaluated as they work.

it simply isn't done.

[Hosnon]

45. I guess assuming there are extensive separations/checks it could work. I

just don't ever see an entity that is in charge of policing itself doing a particularly swell job. Split the entity up and then perhaps...

[xchrom]

46. think outside the box.

you can create a series of commissions whose sole purpose is review -- or you'd love this, hire a private contractor -- i'm a socialist but you use whatever works best in this case.

[Hosnon]

48. Right, checks may do the trick. It's a bit too early and I'm a bit too

hung over to think through everything to give a decent reply.

I'm trying to sober up but so far it ain't workin':)

[xchrom]

50. better to have some fun -- it's the weekend. enjoy.

[IronLionZion]

39. cut out fraud, waste, corruption, bureacracy, and useless regulations

What many people don't realize is that there are many regulations that help the crooked corporations and need to be updated or thrown out.

I believe our tax dollars should be used effectively and if a certain project is getting too much money thrown at it over many years with nothing to show for it, then let's cut it. My views are very similar to that of Taxpayers for Common Sense www.taxpayer.net and the Democratic Freedom Caucus.

Government safety nets should be in place to stop people from starving and give them enough opportunities so they can do anything, but not so much that they can do nothing. Not everyone on assistance is skinny or disabled. Think about it. This is one of the few countries where the poor people are fatter than middle class people.

Helping your fellow people is profitable. Just imagine what could have been done with the $1 trillion flushed down Iraq.

[Totally Committed]

40. Personally, my politics are very to the left.

The only small "c" I have is that I really support the troops and the veterans. But, I think this fits in more with my personal philosophy of PEOPLE FIRST.

I feel the welfare of EVERY individual in a society is as important as the next. I feel poverty is an abomination, and that disparity of welth is the true root of all evil. Equality means nothing to a person if he must live in the street, and truly... how CAN a person have equality if he lives in the streets, or hand-to-mouth, in a country where there is such prosperity and wealth for only some?

But, back to my small "c"... even during the Vietnam War, which I chose to oppose and demonstrate in the streets against... I never blamed or shunned the troops as some did. I felt they had sacrificed a great deal, and always felt they were due my respect. I took a lot of grief for that, personally, but never backed away from it.

TC

[Hosnon]

41. The smaller the government, the better; balance the budget; the free

market can take care of many things and should...

That's about it off the top of my head.

[bread_and_roses]

52. Which "things" does "the free market" do such a good job

taking care of?

[Solon]

65. Can you please list WHAT the "free" market should take care of? n/t

[ProudDad]

93. What free market????

There's never been one on this earth...

[tsuki]

47. None. Conservativism has morphed. The left is always defined

by the right. When John Dean, a 60's Conservative, maintains he holds the same views, but says he is now considered a bit left of center, then I think that says it all.

[calico1]

49. Fiscal responsibility.

Of course I am referring to the way Conservatism used to be, not what it is now.

[JNelson6563]

51. Don't spend what you don't have

Government out of private lives.

[NashVegas]

55. I'm Partial to That "Personal Responsibility" Thing

The more we allow government to make choices for us, the more we file frivolous lawsuits** instead of using common sense, the more dependent and stupid we become.

** I'm not talking about McDonald's & hot coffee; I'm talking about food labeling where manufacturers carry an allergen warning at the end of the ingredients' list.

An example:

Kellogg's Crunchy Nut Clusters Milk Chocolate Curls

Rolled Oats, Sugar, Milk Chocolate (15%)(Sugar, Cocoa Mass, Cocoa Butter, Whole Milk Powder, Skimmed Milk Powder, Emulsifier {Soy Lecithin}, Flavouring), Maize, Wheat Flour, Vegetable Oil, Peanuts (4%), Honey (3%), Invert Sugar Syrup, Dried Coconut, Salt, Barley Malt Flavouring, Glucose-Fructose Syrup, Niacin, Iron, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin (B2), Thiamin (B1), Folic Acid, Vitamin B12.

Contains milk ingredients
Contains soy
Contains wheat
Contains oats
Contains barley
Contains peanut ingredients
Vegetarian
Contains nut ingredients


===

Just in case you can't be bothered.

[AX10]

61. So you think that allergy warnings are a bad thing?

:eyes:

[NashVegas]

64. I Think The Above Ones Are Indicative of a Lazy, Lawsuit-Happy Society

What other reason could there/would there be for a federal mandate that Planters Peanuts has to add "contains peanuts" right after they've NAMED the product "peanuts" and incuded "peanuts" on the ingredients list?

[Solon]

77. Because ALL food products have to be labeled that way.

I don't see why "obvious" food items should be exempt from the SAME requirements as EVERY OTHER FOOD PRODUCT OUT THERE!

[AX10]

62. While I don't call myself a conservative:

I don't believe in Affirmative Action and want to see this policy done away with.
I am for a balanced budget (though Democrats are better with that than the GOP).
I am against excessive spending.
I support the 1996 welfare reform act.
I don't believe in late-term abortion.
I support most of NAFTA.
I believe that there are times (which are rare) that military force will have to be used to defend
against threats.

However, I will never call my self a "conservative" because they are the old-timers who love to tell us how "good" things were during the 1950's.

As a Democrat:
I don't belive in capital punishment.
I am for social security just the way it is.
I am for Universal Healthcare.
I am pro-environment.
I am pro-public schools.
I am pro-minimum wage (it should be increased too).
I strongly believe in the seperation of church and state.

[jonnyblitz]

63. not a one. I don't buy into this "real or old time conservatives

are/were good" bullshit. just remember how they behaved in the 60's during the civil rights movement.

to be honest whenever I see a post like this I cringe.

[Kitsune]

66. I likes my guns.

But personally, I've never understood why it's a conservative position to let people have whatever kind of firearm they want and a liberal position to put restrictions on them. This is much the same as my reaction to elected representatives wanting to ban certain video games, except both Republicans and Democrats ride that particular train of ridiculousness whenever it comes up.

As a note, no, I don't particularly think that people should be allowed to own, say, rocket launchers (but man would I love to rent one at a firing range ;) ), and I am very much in favor of mandatory firearm safety courses for everyone as well as laws governing the proper safe storage of firearms.

[DuaneBidoux]

67. A government that pays its bills

[saltpoint]

69. I'd like to see the United States convert to a parliamentary system

instead of the current chaos.

It would mean, at the very least, that the President of the United States would have to stand on his or her own two feet and articulate issues and ideas.

I think that would have eliminated consideration of the current incumbent right out of the gate.

[AX10]

75. I agree.

[Clarkie1]

76. Conserve the environment, like Teddy Roosevelt. nt

[Cybergata]

90. Now here's a conservatism that I can agree with!

Conservation! Caring for the environment! It isn't just a good thing to do, it is necessary for the survival of future generations.

[kineneb]

78. respect for the Constitution and laws

-conserving the environment & the quality of our food
-trying to balance budgets- federal, state and local
-treating all with respect and courtesy, no matter their politics or beliefs
-being able to have pride in one's town, state and federal government (not shame)
-truly supporting the American Family, by honoring the worth of all citizens
-avoiding knee-jerk policies that lead to disaster (think first, consider all outcomes!)
-outlawing corporate person-hood

My old dictionary (1952) gives these definitions:

conservative adj.: 1. inclined to keep things as they are; opposed to change. 2. often Conservative. of or belonging to a political party that opposes changes in national institutions. 3. cautious; moderate.

also

conserve n: 1. protect from harm, loss or from being used up. (and of course...)2. preserve (fruit) with sugar.

I like the "protect from harm, loss or from being used up" definition.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

81. I don't favor abortion. But I don't think I have a right to tell another

woman/her doctor/her family what to do when faced with that situation.

[Stargazer99]

82. The only thing I have in common with conservatives

is slamming those borders shut! On both sides! Otherwise I'm known as a flaming liberal.

[Clarkie1]

84. I believe in a strong national defense...is that "conservative?"

[yellowcanine]

88. The government needs to stay the fuck out of our lives. That includes

our bedrooms, our doctor patient relationships, etc.

[Don1]

94. How I am Conservative

The problem with US politics is that it is seen as a liberal-conservative dichotomy. The radical-conservative dichotomy is ignored. "Conservative" really means trying to save things, keep them the same, where radical means trying to change them. So, when the cons try to change the Constitution by adding a flag burning amendment or an anti-gay marriage amendment, they are not being conservative. When they change laws around, upsetting the balance between branches of government, they are not being conservative either. When they pass laws circumventing the Fourth Amendment and when they disregard propaganda laws, they are not being conservative. When they give more power to corporations than citizenry, they are not being conservative. When they increase the economic gap between rich and poor, they are no longer conservative. When they start new global wars, they are not being conservative either. That is radical.