3rd party--no--New Conservative party yes.

[christiefan915]

It is ridiculous to think we want to save souls. JHC, the crap that comes out of liberals mouths is nauseating.

Of course the government hasn't come right out and said they want to save souls, but conservatives want government to be arbiters of the country's morals. Fringies want government in the bedroom, in the marriage, and in control of women's bodies, and you know it's true.

Why did bush make the statement below in a conference about home ownership?

"We unleash the faith-based programs to help change peoples' hearts, which will help change peoples' lives..."

 

[Good Luck]

And what the fuck do democrats want, except to impose their own system of morals on all of society via taxation coupled with assistance programs? How many times have we heard it defended as "doing the right thing" to MAKE people give their money so it can be redistributed to those in need? (We'll forgo the usual discussion of facts that government programs almost always end up doing more harm than good, and stay focussed on the fact that imposition of your own set of morals is exactly what you support every time you support high taxation to support assistance programs.

Also, since Bush isn't exactly adored by the core conservative movement, bring up what he said or did is completely irrelevant anyway.

 

[Good Luck]

BTW: typical LIE about womens' bodies. We could give a shit less what you do with your bodies. It's what you do with other living humans that concerns us.

 

[Taichiliberal]

And what the fuck do democrats want, except to impose their own system of morals on all of society via taxation coupled with assistance programs? How many times have we heard it defended as "doing the right thing" to MAKE people give their money so it can be redistributed to those in need? (We'll forgo the usual discussion of facts that government programs almost always end up doing more harm than good, and stay focussed on the fact that imposition of your own set of morals is exactly what you support every time you support high taxation to support assistance programs.

Also, since Bush isn't exactly adored by the core conservative movement, bring up what he said or did is completely irrelevant anyway.

Please explain your personal definition of an "assistance program" and tax and how they're used to impose the morals of the Democratic Party onto you that you obviously find so replusive? After which, you can also explain how the Republican Party has not been culpable to the same actions.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Of course the government hasn't come right out and said they want to save souls, but conservatives want government to be arbiters of the country's morals. Fringies want government in the bedroom, in the marriage, and in control of women's bodies, and you know it's true.

Why did bush make the statement below in a conference about home ownership?

"We unleash the faith-based programs to help change peoples' hearts, which will help change peoples' lives..."


YouTube- Home Ownership and President Bush

You lefties want to use government to institute a regime of racial purity against white people.

 

[midcan5]

Any of you wingnuts care to define 'modern conservatism?' I won't tell you what it is till I hear you say it.

 

[christiefan915]

And what the fuck do democrats want, except to impose their own system of morals on all of society via taxation coupled with assistance programs? How many times have we heard it defended as "doing the right thing" to MAKE people give their money so it can be redistributed to those in need?

"Redistribution of wealth" is just another smear against liberals. I only see that term in RW screeds, or from those McCarthyesque nuts who had Communism on the brain.

(We'll forgo the usual discussion of facts that government programs almost always end up doing more harm than good...)

This is always the argument of conservatives. My opinion is that harm v. good would be pretty much equal, whether govt. v. private.

...and stay focussed on the fact that imposition of your own set of morals is exactly what you support every time you support high taxation to support assistance programs.

My morals say the U.S. shouldn't be spending a huge part of the budget for military and defense, or giving money and arms to other countries, or meddling in other countries' affairs. No matter who's in office we're going to pay taxes, and it's a lead-pipe cinch those taxes will continue to increase. I would prefer my increased taxes to benefit the people in this country, not to put a missile shield in Europe, or to rain billions on Israel and other countries, or to finance the next war. But that's just me.

Also, since Bush isn't exactly adored by the core conservative movement, bring up what he said or did is completely irrelevant anyway.

Right, "irrelevant" only because it's embarrassing to hear him say what he did. Further, Tutu is a long-time bush apologist, and my comment was directed to her, not to you.

 

[evince]

Yeah the Core conservative movement that helped him win elections now hates him.

Only because he did what you wanted him to do and then it fucked everything up.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I agree--a third party could split a vote block, and we might elect another marxist unless the economy improves for citizens (and it won't).

But none of the so called Conservative media (radio and TV) could see any other way than to "revitalize the Republican with Conservative candidates".

Since the Dem party, and the Rep party is infiltrated with progressives, I don't think revilitizing the Rep party to Conservative values, will be any easier than revitalizing the Dem party to do the same.

I want to see either one of the parties disolve, or merge, so a real Conservative party can rise up and give us a clear choice like we have never seen in our lives.

That concept seems to to be hard to grasp for the Conservative mouth pieces.

That's alls we need is some nit wit who runs a lawn mowing business out of his garage thinking he can run the country.

NEWFLASH DUDE. We just had a Harvard MBA for President and he was the biggest fuck up since Harding.

This is something that frustrates me about conservatives and leaves open their susceptability to corruption.

That is, there's a huge difference between running a business and running a government and those who don't know that are clueless mother fuckers.

 

[Kamala Trump]

That's alls we need is some nit wit who runs a lawn mowing business out of his garage thinking he can run the country.

NEWFLASH DUDE. We just had a Harvard MBA for President and he was the biggest fuck up since Harding.

This is something that frustrates me about conservatives and leaves open their susceptability to corruption.

That is, there's a huge difference between running a business and running a government and those who don't know that are clueless mother fuckers.

Running a business is better preparation than spewing socialist crap, waving and having nice teeth like obama.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Any of you wingnuts care to define 'modern conservatism?' I won't tell you what it is till I hear you say it.

It's internationalist fascist and anti-american with just a different focus.

Both parties are sellouts destroying america with globalization stupidity, conservatives tell us we're too lazy to live, liberals tell us we're too historically white. the only difference is the frame.

Populism is the new freedom lover's ism.

 

[Good Luck]

"Redistribution of wealth" is just another smear against liberals. I only see that term in RW screeds, or from those McCarthyesque nuts who had Communism on the brain.

Let's see, you impose a highly progressive tax aimed at taking lots and lots of money from the wealthy in order to run a bunch of economic traps laughingly called assistance programs. Taking from the rich to give to the poor. If that is not wealth redistribution, what is? If you are going to support the dual liberal platforms of highly progressive taxation and high incident assistance programs, at least be honest with what it is you support. A skunk by any other name still stinks.

This is always the argument of conservatives. My opinion is that harm v. good would be pretty much equal, whether govt. v. private.

The harm comes from regulating the programs in such a way that people are functionally punished when they try to help themselves out instead of sitting back and riding the federal assistance programs, quite literally forcing more and more people into dependency roles. The harm comes from making so many race-based assistance programs, making the problems of racism in our society that much worse by governmental mandate of racist policies.

My morals say the U.S. shouldn't be spending a huge part of the budget for military and defense, or giving money and arms to other countries, or meddling in other countries' affairs. No matter who's in office we're going to pay taxes, and it's a lead-pipe cinch those taxes will continue to increase. I would prefer my increased taxes to benefit the people in this country, not to put a missile shield in Europe, or to rain billions on Israel and other countries, or to finance the next war. But that's just me.

The bolded part is where you fall off the tracks. Taxes need not continually increase. That's a liberal boogie to justify taking (and wasting) more and more and more. And forcing people into a life of dependency at subsitence level is hardly "benefiting" them - it's creating (quite deliberately!) an entire class of governmental vote slaves. "Vote for us or you'll get cut off!"

Right, "irrelevant" only because it's embarrassing to hear him say what he did. Further, Tutu is a long-time bush apologist, and my comment was directed to her, not to you.

Having never liked the fucker, why should I be embarrassed by what he said? But the fact remains that the CORE conservative movement was never satisfied with Bush - especially when it came to spending issues. If you believe otherwise, it only proves how far up the donkey's ass you keep your head. As such, bringing him into the conversation as a counter example to the government policies core conservatives are fighting against, is, as I said, irrelevant.

 

[Kamala Trump]

It's funny how libs are so smart they forget what words mean.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Libs can never maintain power because when they get the megaphone of power they sound fucking stupider than shit.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by midcan5
Any of you wingnuts care to define 'modern conservatism?' I won't tell you what it is till I hear you say it.

It's internationalist fascist and anti-american with just a different focus.

Both parties are sellouts destroying america with globalization stupidity, conservatives tell us we're too lazy to live, liberals tell us we're too historically white. the only difference is the frame.

Populism is the new freedom lover's ism.

Interesting...because I seem to recall you ardently defending the actions and policies of the Shrub and company on these threads. And by your definition here, they were part of everything you're allegedly against.

Can you say "contradiction" boys & girls? Sure you can.....I knew you could.