Hypocrisy and Right vs. Left Wing

  • Thread starter Thread starter mschrank
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That’s because **the people who are in poverty do not have the capability to escape it on their own. **They have to rely on a managerial state for their daily bread and water or else they will suffer.
And the government makes sure they never have the capability to escape it.

Poverty programs aren’t about getting people out of poverty, they’re about perpetuating poverty, thereby creating a permanent underclass dependent on government, while providing lots of jobs for bureaucrats.
 
I was just watching BookTV and they had Grover Norquist on.

Very relevant to this discussion.

You can see his discussion on www.booktv.org and also by visiting www.atr.org

I just ordered his book from Amazon.

“Leave Us Alone”

Fabulous discussion.

Check out his web site and the BookTV discussion.
 
It should be a none issue by now if in fact such “charity” works as the solution to mass starvation, lack of health care, lack of housing, funds to attend schools, etc.
Our taxes are not meant to solve the evils of the world and since the ills you list do not describe the country we pay taxes to, it’s not clear why you think those problems should have been eliminated, least of all by taxing us.

Ender
 
SoCal -have done no such thing.
You asserted, specifically, that emulating the folks near you would benefit the nation.

Let’s review what you, and some of your fellow conservatives have now stated.
  1. Conservatives profess to be “pro life”, but reject the Church’s definition of “pro life”. In your case, you find it impractical (you sneered at the idea of not torturing), others find it contradictory or even incoherent (Ender).
  2. Conservatives profess to be “absolutely” against abortion, but, large numbers support abortions in specific instances. For example, rape, incest, and the life of the mother (Vern even steadfastly supports abortions when the mother’s life is not demonstrably in danger).
  3. Conservativer profess to be committed to “winning” in Iraq, But are the largest hurdle to success. Too few troops, can’t get the right equipment, staggering graft and corruption in rebuilding and humanitarian efforts. All matters of protected policy by the GOP.
  4. Conservatives profess to “support the troops”, but appear to hate them. Extended deployments, stop loss, blocking pay increases, denying benefits as a matter of policy. This continues, for example, GOP hopefuls mention improved GI benefits on the campaign trail because most Americans have the moral sense to support a nation’s obligations to those who risk everything for our national security. But those hopefuls will not co-sponsor the new GI bill. It needs 60 sponsors because the president has already vowed to veto it.
This is nothing new, the GOP has been blocking adaquate funding for VA hospitals and proper health services for wounded vets for some time.
  1. Conservatives profess to want “honest and responsible government”, but, in fact, love corruption and graft on a historic scale. This fits nicely with troop hating. Connected 20 somethings getting hundreds of millions of dollars to provide defective ammunition. $2.4B to the VPs old company, to serve tainted food and contaminated water to US solders. $6B in body armor contracts with waivers to avoid any testing so that shoddy, sub grade **** can get delivered to American soldiers.
There was a time, when something like the Truman commission would be beyond party. Not now, even profiteering from forced abortions in Saipan fits nicely with the modern conservative ‘concience’.
  1. Conservatives profess to honor family values. But are not even outraged when a gay male prostitute, under an alias, is given access to the White House press room, even in the presence of the president, for two years. Prostitution, predatory pedophilia, infidelity, divorce. None seem to be a barrior to GOP electability, or even leadership positions.
  2. Conservatives profess to hold national security as a high priority. But seem to have little interest in most national security matters. For example, port security has not only not been addressed, the GOP has been trying to move control of our ports to foreign companies. Consider the implications of the gay male prostitute above - in the white house, near the President. Small surprise, the White House has failed to fullfil its own exectutive orders with regards to classified secrets and the Vice President has argued that even laws pertaining to such secrets do not apply to him (small wonder that two convictions related to misshandling such material has come from his office).
The GOP cut funding for cyber security. Security for chemical plants was vetoed. Aid funds for controlling fissionable weapons materials was also slashed. And Homeland Security funds were turned into a political piggy bank. Think about it, festivals in Wyoming are listed as possible targets, but nothing in Los Angeles of NYC (which has actually been attacked multiple times) made the list.
  1. Conservatives profess to love America, value liberty, and treasure freedom. But they appear to hate the constitution. Like Catholic “pro life” beliefs, the fourth amendment appears to be too quaint in the ‘scary’ world of today.
Notice that conservatives claim that Iraq is essential for our national security, making comparisons to WWII. But then refuse to spread the burden of the fighting beyond a tiny group of Americans. More tellingly, they refuse to pay for it, shorting our troops of everything from working ammo and clean water, to proper armor and medical treatment.

This has the side effect of also attacking national security. It places a tremendous debt on future generations and puts us in a subservient position to the foreign powers that are now funding our exploding debt.

Frankly, very little of what conservatives here espouse fit the values I grew up with. Obligation to the service of one’s country. Obligation of the country to the men and women who serve. Financial responsibility, a real man pay’s his own way. Real men also owned up to their mistakes and took responsibility for them.

Perhaps most importantly, a man does not have a fair weather relationship to his principles. If you really believe in them, you will stand up for them not just when it is convenient, but when it may cost you something. The one’s you truly hold dear you will stand by even if they cost you everything. The modern conservative model appears to be, nothing is more important than protecting our hides. Nothing is worth taking more risk for, nothing is worth dying for. Letting other people die, no problem, but themselves?

The simple answer is that conservatives are, in fact, spectacular hypocrits. But I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by exploring the hypothesis (which has some scientific support) that you are not hypocrits by choice, but are mentally disinclined to connect your actions to the measurable results they have in the world.
 
You asserted, specifically, that emulating the folks near you would benefit the nation.

Let’s review what you, and some of your fellow conservatives have now stated.
  1. Conservatives profess to be “pro life”, but reject the Church’s definition of “pro life”. In your case, you find it impractical (you sneered at the idea of not torturing), others find it contradictory or even incoherent (Ender).
  2. Conservatives profess to be “absolutely” against abortion, but, large numbers support abortions in specific instances. For example, rape, incest, and the life of the mother (Vern even steadfastly supports abortions when the mother’s life is not demonstrably in danger).
  3. Conservativer profess to be committed to “winning” in Iraq, But are the largest hurdle to success. Too few troops, can’t get the right equipment, staggering graft and corruption in rebuilding and humanitarian efforts. All matters of protected policy by the GOP.
  4. Conservatives profess to “support the troops”, but appear to hate them. Extended deployments, stop loss, blocking pay increases, denying benefits as a matter of policy. This continues, for example, GOP hopefuls mention improved GI benefits on the campaign trail because most Americans have the moral sense to support a nation’s obligations to those who risk everything for our national security. But those hopefuls will not co-sponsor the new GI bill. It needs 60 sponsors because the president has already vowed to veto it.
This is nothing new, the GOP has been blocking adaquate funding for VA hospitals and proper health services for wounded vets for some time.
  1. Conservatives profess to want “honest and responsible government”, but, in fact, love corruption and graft on a historic scale. This fits nicely with troop hating. Connected 20 somethings getting hundreds of millions of dollars to provide defective ammunition. $2.4B to the VPs old company, to serve tainted food and contaminated water to US solders. $6B in body armor contracts with waivers to avoid any testing so that shoddy, sub grade **** can get delivered to American soldiers.
There was a time, when something like the Truman commission would be beyond party. Not now, even profiteering from forced abortions in Saipan fits nicely with the modern conservative ‘concience’.
  1. Conservatives profess to honor family values. But are not even outraged when a gay male prostitute, under an alias, is given access to the White House press room, even in the presence of the president, for two years. Prostitution, predatory pedophilia, infidelity, divorce. None seem to be a barrior to GOP electability, or even leadership positions.
  2. Conservatives profess to hold national security as a high priority. But seem to have little interest in most national security matters. For example, port security has not only not been addressed, the GOP has been trying to move control of our ports to foreign companies. Consider the implications of the gay male prostitute above - in the white house, near the President. Small surprise, the White House has failed to fullfil its own exectutive orders with regards to classified secrets and the Vice President has argued that even laws pertaining to such secrets do not apply to him (small wonder that two convictions related to misshandling such material has come from his office).
The GOP cut funding for cyber security. Security for chemical plants was vetoed. Aid funds for controlling fissionable weapons materials was also slashed. And Homeland Security funds were turned into a political piggy bank. Think about it, festivals in Wyoming are listed as possible targets, but nothing in Los Angeles of NYC (which has actually been attacked multiple times) made the list.
  1. Conservatives profess to love America, value liberty, and treasure freedom. But they appear to hate the constitution. Like Catholic “pro life” beliefs, the fourth amendment appears to be too quaint in the ‘scary’ world of today.
Notice that conservatives claim that Iraq is essential for our national security, making comparisons to WWII. But then refuse to spread the burden of the fighting beyond a tiny group of Americans. More tellingly, they refuse to pay for it, shorting our troops of everything from working ammo and clean water, to proper armor and medical treatment.

This has the side effect of also attacking national security. It places a tremendous debt on future generations and puts us in a subservient position to the foreign powers that are now funding our exploding debt.

Frankly, very little of what conservatives here espouse fit the values I grew up with. Obligation to the service of one’s country. Obligation of the country to the men and women who serve. Financial responsibility, a real man pay’s his own way. Real men also owned up to their mistakes and took responsibility for them.

Perhaps most importantly, a man does not have a fair weather relationship to his principles. If you really believe in them, you will stand up for them not just when it is convenient, but when it may cost you something. The one’s you truly hold dear you will stand by even if they cost you everything. The modern conservative model appears to be, nothing is more important than protecting our hides. Nothing is worth taking more risk for, nothing is worth dying for. Letting other people die, no problem, but themselves?

The simple answer is that conservatives are, in fact, spectacular hypocrits. But I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by exploring the hypothesis (which has some scientific support) that you are not hypocrits by choice, but are mentally disinclined to connect your actions to the measurable results they have in the world.
On 4-14-08 at 5:05 pm post # 353 I predicted this-
Weather report coming on the horizon.
:bigyikes: Did ANYBODY read all this?
 
SoCal brother you are too much. I couldn’t put this on the above post BECAUSE I DIDN’T HAVE ROOM AFTER YOUR DESERTATION! LOL.

I’m not gonna bore the good folks here with a long post, because they ALL CLICKED OUT ANYWAY! :rotfl:

I can’t respond to much of that diatribe, but you are correct when you say I think the country would be better off it was run on the same values as Alabama.wihch is -pro life, low taxes, and gays are* not *gonna get a marriage license, (we’re gonna send them to Arkansas for that, so Vern can deal with them LOL) So NO, not backing off that statement.

But when I asked you if you thought the USA would be better off it was run like the State of California you gave a emphatic NO, with no explanation as to why, because it was one of the most liberal places in America, I thought you’d like to put it on the rest of us. My gosh it is the home of San Francisco!! LOL. Where are kinds of dysfunctional people are welcomed except the U.S.military!

Now take Al M, he’s prollly the ONLY conservative way up there in NJ, where folks really tawk funny, but he fights the conservative cause. And who knows, after the libs get through ransacking his state, he’ll be around to pick up the pieces.

By the way, how many words can you type a minute? I thought I could type pretty good to be a 50 something retired firefighter, that just happened to take typing in HS. And that was back in the days when you used a typewriter, and had to do that backspace thing to center headings. I bet y’all DON’T remember THAT.

Look here SoCal if ya wanna have a chance to convert more Caltholics to liberalism, your boys/girls are gonna hafta give up the pro choice plank, gay marriage, etc stuff.

Vern you gonna vote yourself a tax increase this fall? LOL.
 
…very little of what conservatives here espouse fit the values I grew up with. Obligation to the service of one’s country. Obligation of the country to the men and women who serve. Financial responsibility, a real man pay’s his own way. Real men also owned up to their mistakes and took responsibility for them.
very well said.

My father, God rest his soul, was a lifer in the USAF. He served in two wars; WWII (In the Army Air Corp which later became the 11th AF serving in the Aleutian Islands) and then later in Vietnam (stationed at Saigon).

My Dad raised me to place my priorities as:

God (Church)
Country
Family

in that order.

Most people place family before country, but since we were in the military we put country before family, but NEVER country before God.
 
One of the comments offered by folks on the right is that Marxism has ten “tenets”.

I looked up “ten tenets of Marxism” on Google and the ten are listed in many places. This list of ten has been around for many decades, but doesn’t get reproduced enough. But they are worthy of consideration and adding to this discussion of right vs. left.

Anyway, I copied the ten from one of the places and am pasting them here. I have edited some of the original blogger’s comments to reduce their inflammatory-ness.)

See if you all recognize these ten:

  1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. (Kelo v. City of New London)
  2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. (April 15th each year)
  3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (Death Tax)
  4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
  5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. (This one goes way back to Hamilton winning his precious centralized bank. In this sense, Marx was beat to the punch.)
  6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. (Massive federal government regulations. Check your phone bills for the taxes levied in order to maintain the bureaucracy.)
  7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. (Enter extreme environmentalism.)
  8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. (Fortunately, we are free of this tenet so far.)
  9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. (Thank God, no!)
  10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. (Today, it is nearly impossible to get a decent job without at least a high school education. Instead of the 3 ‘R’s, public schools are insistent that children be indoctrinated.)
 
On 4-14-08 at 5:05 pm post # 353 I predicted this-

:bigyikes: Did ANYBODY read all this?
Actually, I did read all of it.

None of it is an accurate statement.

None of it is the truth, the WHOLE truth, and NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.

I mean it is Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid [they of the left, not the right] who currently are gutting the budget for cyber security and putting up bureaucratic obstructions … FISA and all that. It was the previous Democrat administrations (starting with the Carter administration) who cut the military by 1/3 and gutted the CIA and other intel agencies … and who set up the wall of separation … the famous Gorelick Wall that prevented us from stopping the 9/11 attacks. All of these “initiatives” are of liberal origin not conservative origin.

Gotta tell the TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH and NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.

P.S. George W. Bush is not a conservative, and neither was Ronald Reagan. But they came closer to being conservative than say … Bill or Jimmy.

The present President Bush has consistently supported tax cuts for all and been pro-life. And some other things. Far more than his predecessor or Jimmy Carter.

Without 60 votes, the conservatives cannot get their list of legislative initiatives put through.

There are many things that conservatives from different directions don’t agree on. But here are five things that conservatives DO agree on:
  1. school choice. (Parents should control their children’s education)
  2. personalize Social Security. (An end to “one size fits all”).
  3. personalize health care. (An end to the Cuban/Canadian model.)
  4. outsource government civil work. (Let the government sector benefit from the same economies as the private sector. Abolish government bureaucracies … the closest thing to eternal life in this dimension.)
  5. transparency (post ALL government budgets to the internet. Let everyone see everything. THE STATES are already starting this one: Texas, Missouri, Alaska, S.C., OK, KS, UT and others have already started.)
Visit www.atr.org and www.fairtax.org and www.boortz.com

If you have a few dollars, buy “Conscience of a Conservative”.

Get your library to buy Alfred Regnery’s new book: “Upstream”

amazon.com/Upstream-Ascendance-Conservatism-Alfred-Regnery/dp/1416522883/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208171946&sr

Restore the Supreme Court to its Constitutional role. Read Mark Levin’s book “Men in Black” and Schlaffly’s book “The Supremacists”.
 
None of it is an accurate statement.

None of it is the truth, the WHOLE truth, and NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.
Actually, all of it is truthful. The vast majority can be established by sworn testimony and written reports of the very administration under discussion. The rest comes from written statements from those of you here. Remember, I am coming from a Catholic point of view, not your political one, so I take things like CCC 2470 very seriously.

As noted, the principle problem appears to be that conservatives are very different in their thought processes and have great difficulty processing measurable reality.

Look at yourself, the Pentagon says “no connection”, you find “yes connection” to be Gospel truth. You find ‘blame Carter’ for the housing crisis to be credible, but measurable reality says differently. The ‘simple’ answer to the housing disaster is staggering incompetence on the part of the GOP led US government:

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/12/AR2008041202374.html

Of course, that is also the simplest and most probable answer to the disasterous Federal response to Katrina, the spectacularly ineffective execution of the Iraq war, and 9/11. But, again, in the conservative mind reason and sensory integration do not seem to proceed well held belief.

Consider the mantra that has been raised here - conservatives claim to hate taxes and hate wasteful government spending. At first glance, that seems to make sense. ‘What’s mine is mine, I earned it, and society has no claim to it’ is a uniquely Protestant type of thought and the conservative movement is fundementally an Evangelical Protestant world view.

But look at the reality. Ronald Reagan tried to outspend tip O’Neil. GWB, and a GOP congress has outspent LBJ. Record numbers of earmarks, trillions (with a T) borrowed and spent, with little tangible result. Plan D has done virtually nothing to help seniors with drug costs, because it triggered protected inflation (since the law forbids free market pressure). And massive military spending, aside from a trillion or so in Iraq and Afghanistan have left the military reporting that it is at its lowest threat readiness level in more than 60 years. Measurable discretionary spending contraction has only occured under Dem Presidents since WW-II. Clearly, the GOP loves to spend lavishly.

What about taxes? One of the falsehoods that conservatives cling to is that everyone’s taxes when down under Reagan. However, you have to cheat to make the numbers come out. First, you have to included the Bush I tax increase to make benefits to the rich look smaller. Second, you have to exclude payroll taxes to hide Reagan’s tax increases.

The modern GOP has taken this policy a step further. GWB has doubled our national debt and created a structural deficit that was just revised up to about $500B. Instead of taxing the working poor, who don’t have that much anyway, the GOP now taxes the unborn, at a staggering rate. The GAO has already acknowledged that future generations will spend over 1/3 of their earnings just servicing the debt we are leaving them. This leads liberals to ponder rather conservatives are not just hypocrits, but sociopaths who do not even love their own children.

However, as I have noted, I think that it is the inability to accept and process reality that plays the most significant role. If you can convince yourself that silly things like ‘tax cuts increase revenue’, despite all evidence to the contrary (like doubling one’s national debt), then you can tell yourself that you are not destroying your descendants’ prosperity.

I have actually been thinking about the implications of conservative thinking for awhile and concluded that it is a very sad and scary place. If you really are fearful of Mexican’s taking food from your children, Saddam dropping nuclear bombs on you, Iran presenting a legitimate world threat, our gays somehow destroying your own sexuality, you are a lot more prone to respond to the base instincts of fear.

Think of the infamous “fainting goats” who, thanks to myotonia congenita (genetic), faint when startled. If that was the world you lived in, us/them mentality and symptoms of delusional paranoia would be perfectly understandable. Look at BamaRider’s belief about that pointing out contradictions in his stated belief system automatically makes me ‘them’ (his prediction).

The reality is that I am a very conservative Roman Catholic. I have an easier time communicating with most liberals because of the way their thought processes work, but we immediately recognize the significant differences between us. In the US, I believe that modern liberalism is not particular hypocritical. But I do believe that, like conservatives, has an incorrect understanding of the inalienable rights of the human person. Like conservatives, they apply a perceived version of proportionality.

As with conservatives, I think that the principle problem is Protestantism. That is why our political labels seem screwey to the rest of the world.

But, for Bamarider, there is no view beyond the herd. I am not in his faint hearted circle, so I am ‘them’. From my point of view, which is predominantly Catholic, the problem isn’t the conservative herd, but the selection of the wrong shepards. Protestant seperation from the Mother Church, and more allegience to an earthly construct geared towards the pursuit of political power than the Body of the Faithful.

Let’s face it, “unity and peace” is incompatible with xenophobia and hyper intense nationalism. If you pray for one and shout the other you are serving two masters. As a Catholic, I have a very strong opinion about which master should be loved most. Perhaps that is why the ‘religious right base’ of the GOP considers us a threat to the nation.
 
Remember, I am coming from a Catholic point of view, not your political one, so I take things like CCC 2470 very seriously.
I won’t respond to your entire screed, but I would like to address this. You are painting all Catholics who are either Democrats or Republicans with not taking Christ’s and the Church’s teaching seriously.

Here is the quote from the Catechism that you mentioned:
2470 The disciple of Christ consents to “live in the truth,” that is, in the simplicity of a life in conformity with the Lord’s example, abiding in his truth. "If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not live according to the truth."265
Just because someone has made the choice to support one of the two major parties, rather than be completely opposed to compromise (which is an interesting thought process, you should also consider studying), this does not mean that they don’t take CCC 2470 seriously. You obviously believe that the rest of us are “walking in darkness” and “lying.” I’m sure you don’t say it directly, because you are trying to avoid disciplinary action from the moderators, but you’ve made yourself very clear. What is ironic (and hypocritical) is that you complain about Bamarider making you part of “THEM,” and then turn around and lump all conservatives into one big group of THEM. Good job there! :rolleyes:

The choices for Catholics in the US are to completely retreat from politics and voting (not recommended by the Catechism), try to create a third party (nothing wrong with that, but I have explained the reasons I don’t ad nauseum, so I won’t get into that), or choose one of the major parties and work towards bringing them closer to the Catholic “ideal.”

The other fallacy, which you seem to enjoy arguing, is that there is a single, Catholic viewpoint. There is not. Being against government social programs does not mean that you don’t care for the poor. This has also been explained several times, but you seem to have the very black/white reasoning which you ascribe to other people. Both Democrats and Republicans (liberals and conservatives) can exhibit care for the poor according to Catholic teaching, without agreeing on how to care for the poor.

Further, not all Republicans are anti-immigrant. Most are anti-illegal-immigration, but some are also in favor of guest worker programs (such as myself) and better care/fairness for migratory workers. Again, the Catholic position does not require that we have 100%, no questions asked, open borders for immigration.

To ascribe different ingrained thought processes to those you don’t agree with is very narrowminded on your part. It is an us-and-them mentality, again ironically the same mentality you accuse others of. I appreciate that you disagree with the results of the GOP. I’m not happy with all of the results either. I also am not happy with results from the Democrats. As Catholics, lets work on both parties to bring them more in line with Church teaching. We can argue about the details of Social Justice…IMO, compromise on these issues will still bear some fruit. On life issues, lets get both parties to move more and more in a pro-life direction.

BTW…if you do want to start a third party, you might be able to gain more support if you stop insulting conservatives and lumping them into one group. That is no way to build a large coalition, is it?
 
On 4-14-08 at 5:05 pm post # 353 I predicted this-

:bigyikes: Did ANYBODY read all this?
To be strictly accurate, you did not. You professed that I was a liberal. Pointing out that your actions do not match your stated beliefs is an observation of measurable reality, my beliefs need not be touched on at all. If you bothered to read my post you would see that the stated positions of self-described conservatives are not questioned. Only the hypocrisy of their application is highlighted.

Simplest answer, you say you want to win in Iraq at any cost, but the only acceptable cost to you is ‘no cost’. You support a war you will not fight. And you insist that my great grandchildren pay for it. Rationing, taxes, war bonds, women joining the industrial effort - your father’s WW-II sacrifice was shared by society as a whole.

Clearly, you either have different values, or struggle with reality. The kindest interpretation is the latter. You’re mind is simply wired to believe silly things like tax cuts more than paying for themselves, even as debt and deficits explode.

In addition to reality, your argument again illustrates the conservative problem with coherence. You highlight your father’s contributions as a reflection of your values, but your father’s generation, like those that proceeded them, believed they had an obligation to pay for their own defense. You argue that the cost of your defense should be passed on to the unborn, effectively calling your father’s generation ‘fools’.

I think your father’s generation was right. Certainly, I felt compelled to volunteer for my country even for a war I thought fool hardy. You’ve elected and supported chickenhawks, folks who have admitted that they were too scared (or claimed that they were too important) to fight in the same war even though they supported it, as your leaders. So we’ll have to agree to disagree about your father’s wisdom.
 
… conservatives are very different in their thought processes and have great difficulty processing measurable reality.

Look at yourself, the Pentagon says “no connection”, you find “yes connection” to be Gospel truth. You find ‘blame Carter’ for the housing crisis to be credible, but measurable reality says differently.

The ‘simple’ answer to the housing disaster is staggering incompetence on the part of the GOP led US government:

Of course, that is also the simplest and most probable answer to the disasterous Federal response to Katrina, the spectacularly ineffective execution of the Iraq war, and 9/11. But, again, in the conservative mind reason and sensory integration do not seem to proceed well held belief.

But look at the reality. Ronald Reagan tried to outspend tip O’Neil.

And massive military spending, aside from a trillion or so in Iraq and Afghanistan have left the military reporting that it is at its lowest threat readiness level in more than 60 years.

Measurable discretionary spending contraction has only occured under Dem Presidents since WW-II. Clearly, the GOP loves to spend lavishly.

What about taxes?

This leads liberals to ponder rather conservatives are not just hypocrits, but sociopaths who do not even love their own children.

However, as I have noted, I think that it is the inability to accept and process reality that plays the most significant role. If you can convince yourself that silly things like ‘tax cuts increase revenue’, despite all evidence to the contrary (like doubling one’s national debt), then you can tell yourself that you are not destroying your descendants’ prosperity.

I have actually been thinking about the implications of conservative thinking for awhile and concluded that it is a very sad and scary place. If you really are fearful of Mexican’s taking food from your children, Saddam dropping nuclear bombs on you, Iran presenting a legitimate world threat, our gays somehow destroying your own sexuality, you are a lot more prone to respond to the base instincts of fear.

myotonia congenita (genetic), faint when startled.

… symptoms of delusional paranoia would be perfectly understandable.

In the US, I believe that modern liberalism is not particular hypocritical. But I do believe that, like conservatives, has an incorrect understanding of the inalienable rights of the human person. Like conservatives, they apply a perceived version of proportionality.

As with conservatives, I think that the principle problem is Protestantism. That is why our political labels seem screwey to the rest of the world.

incompatible with xenophobia and hyper intense nationalism.

… the ‘religious right base’ of the GOP considers us a threat to the nation.
I read this. Had to shorten it to fit in the forum size allowance.

Yes, there was a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.

pajamasmedia.com/blog/what_the_pentagon_report_misse/

The problem is that instead of discussion and debate, the post accelerates into hyperbolic expressions that demonstrate lots of heat but shed no light.

“measurable reality”

“sociopaths”

“Reagan tried to outspend Tip O’Neal” … you do understand that spending bills originate in the House of Representatives … right? Under Carter, the military declined and the CIA was gutted. Under Carter, 11 countries went Communist. The West was under attack by the Soviets. Reagan built up the military and increased military spending. He installed Casey as CIA director and worked with Thatcher and Pope John Paul II and many other heads of state to undermine the Soviet Union.

“Measurable discretionary spending contraction has only occured under Dem Presidents since WW-II. Clearly, the GOP loves to spend lavishly.”

Measurable discretionary spending was cut by the Democrats ONLY by cutting military spending. But when the Democrats cut military spending, they weakened the military terribly. They also damaged the U.S. intelligence gathering agencies.

Clinton parked U.S. military aircraft including the fleet of planes used to detect nuclear tests. They had to be hurriedly reactivated after India conducted their nuclear weapons tests. Clinton also grounded the SR-71 Blackbird fleet of reconnaissance aircraft, the loss of which was felt severely later on. Attempts to reactivate the Blackbirds were attempted later … but were half-hearted and unsuccessful. When Kuwait was invaded by Saddam, the first President Bush had a terrible time coming up with enough troops, tanks, aircraft and supplies to respond. Because the Clinton cuts had been very deep.

“And massive military spending, aside from a trillion or so in Iraq and Afghanistan have left the military reporting that it is at its lowest threat readiness level in more than 60 years.”

The “massive military spending” actually represents a very small increase in military spending. Military spending under Bush went from 3% of GDP (a spending level inherited from Clinton) to where it is now at just at 4%. In the past, military spending was more than 35% of GDP during WW2, 15% during the Korean War, 9.5% during the Vietnam War, 6.25% during the Reagan buildup and now it’s a whopping 4%.

Sorry, I think you need to reduce your usage of hyperbole to gain credibility and you need to provide accurate data.

Finally, consider the example of Ireland. They cut their tax rate structure and their economy’s performance took off. We could imitate their example.
 
SoCal believe what ya want, but I live by the values my dad passed on to me.
To be strictly accurate, you did not. You professed that I was a liberal. Pointing out that your actions do not match your stated beliefs is an observation of measurable reality, my beliefs need not be touched on at all. If you bothered to read my post you would see that the stated positions of self-described conservatives are not questioned. Only the hypocrisy of their application is highlighted.
So you’re NOT liberal? I’m conservative, what say you? if you don’t wanna say, just say so, and we’ll let it go at that, no big deal. but please skip the weather report response. I might even accept “moderate” which means to me you don’t really know what ya believe. I respect a flaming liberal’s belief more than a moderates, because he at least believes in something, and not wishy washy, but thats just me. Goes back to my dad, he said to always had to look our for guys that ride the fence, “because they can jump to either side at anytime, and sometimes in th same day.”

And my father’s generation also believed you got up and went to work everyday, and didn’t look for handouts for heath care, education, and what not. My father didn’t look to the govt for anything but staying out his way. You forget to mention that LOL
think your father’s generation was right. Certainly, I felt compelled to volunteer for my country even for a war I thought fool hardy. You’ve elected and supported chickenhawks, folks who have admitted that they were too scared (or claimed that they were too important) to fight in the same war even though they supported it, as your leaders. So we’ll have to agree to disagree about your father’s wisdom.
So this means you can’t vote for anybody unless he’s been in the military? Was FDR a military vet?
Simplest answer, you say you want to win in Iraq at any cost, but the only acceptable cost to you is ‘no cost’. You support a war you will not fight
Why did you say this? 😦

Just how many words can you type a minute? I’m a pretty good typist for a middle aged guy, (about 80 wpm) because I took typing back in HS when it was on a typewriter, and you had to do all that backspace thing to center headlines. But y’all don’t remember that.

By the way, I was 13 years old in 1968.
 
Visitors to this thread might find the most recent Mindszenty newsletter of interest.

The most recent newsletter describes some of the strategies and tactics of the left’s campaign to undermine the United States.

mindszenty.org/report/index.html

Some of the other newsletters are pretty interesting as well. There is one of them that has a useful reading list for folks who would like to embark on a home-schooling program.

The February 2008 newsletter has an article by Dinesh D’Souza, whose books and articles are really required reading. The 2/08 article explains why the “new” atheists are so militant and how Christians must strengthen their moral and intellectual defenses. It’s in a question-and-answer format and D’Souza makes the case for Christianity’s ideas, institutions and values.
 
I won’t respond to your entire screed, but I would like to address this. You are painting all Catholics who are either Democrats or Republicans with not taking Christ’s and the Church’s teaching seriously.
Actually, that is incorrect. I have repeatedly stated that Catholics who do not fully support the non-negotiables from the Vatican are making compromises, so they should take care in judging others just for making different compromises from themselves.

It is the self described conservatives here who have declared themselves as taking Church teaching more seriously than others, even using dimissive and insulting names, like “sideline Catholic” or “coach potato Catholic”.
BTW…if you do want to start a third party, you might be able to gain more support if you stop insulting conservatives and lumping them into one group. That is no way to build a large coalition, is it?
Again, we simply see the issue in utterly different terms. My trust is in God and my duty is to stand as wholly with Him as I can. Focus on self, and the power mechanisms of man is, again, a Protestant outlook. If Catholics would just have the courage to stand with the Holy See on what it terms “the essence of moral law”, I would be indifferent to whatever else they factor into their voting.

You see, it isn’t the compromise that concerns me. We are all sinners. We all fail to truly follow in Jesus’ steps. It is the idolatry, the proclamation of compromise as the one true path to salvation, that troubles me. It is one thing to falter in following God. It is another to argue that others must follow your lead.

As far as insulting, again, it appears to be very different mechanisms of thought. There is little that I ‘accuse’ that folks here do not, themselves, proudly proclaim. Bamarider makes a point of stressing that he does not read what I think each time he expresses an opinion about it. He proudly seperates himself from reality in his views.

Similiarly, he proudly declares the uncompromising nature of his desire not to pay for the war he clearly supports.

The difference isn’t the tangible. It is like the distrust of a GOP presidential hopeful. There is nothing wrong with the voting record, there is just something about the ‘attitude’ that leaves a bad taste in the conservative mouth.

Edit: Just to keep it simple for Bamarider. To re-answer your last question. I can pray (and do) for your souls. I can recognize you as fellow children of God. But if you (conservative or liberal) reject the inalienable rights of the human person, no coallition can be formed. It is expressed as an absolute in the Dogmatic teachings of the Church. In other words, it isn’t what I can compromise on, it is what I am supposed to be willing to be martyred for.

It may be hard to understand, especially for a group that ‘supports’ a war by neither fighting or funding it. But I learned in combat long ago that some things, are, in fact, more important than protecting one’s own skin.
 
The February 2008 newsletter has an article by Dinesh D’Souza, whose books and articles are really required reading. The 2/08 article explains why the “new” atheists are so militant and how Christians must strengthen their moral and intellectual defenses. It’s in a question-and-answer format and D’Souza makes the case for Christianity’s ideas, institutions and values.
Interesting. If we stay in the context of the recent exchanges, the natural question would be - how do the conservative Catholics here justify voting for the GOP since it so closely aligned with Evangelicals who do not even consider us Christian, but a pagan sect that should be erradicated?

It seems to me that, if we hold the Apostolic nature of our Church to be true, then a coallition that rejects our sacrament of marriage, the nature of the sacrament of baptism, the status of our priests, the Eucharist at the center of our Mass, and even our status of our Christianity, would normally constitute seperation from the True Body of the Faithful.
 
You see, it isn’t the compromise that concerns me. We are all sinners. We all fail to truly follow in Jesus’ steps. It is the idolatry, the proclamation of compromise as the one true path to salvation, that troubles me. It is one thing to falter in following God. It is another to argue that others must follow your lead.
This is the crux of the problem. No poster on this forum has said or inferred that “compromise” is the “one true path to salvation.” That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Nor has anyone said that you “must” follow their lead in order to be a true Catholic…with the exception possibly of you.

You claim that compromise in voting for someone who is not 100% on the Catholic non-negotiables is “faltering in following God.” What an incredibly sanctimonious, judgmental statement.
 
That’s a fair argument. So, I guess you also agree that the “War on Poverty” through taxation and liberal programs has been a complete failure.
Yes, insofar as they have not have sufficient funds to solve the problems. You don’t have to go back to the 60’s of course. Most of those programs have been slashed badly over the years and are not the grand designs that were once envisioned. The cut and slash policies of the GOP have not done a thing either have they? Oh and apparently they didn’t even reduce your taxes, just those of the rich which they urge you to emmulate by “pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.” I’ll take the “liberal” programs any day over the “make sure the wealtiest get to keep all their money” policies of the conservatives.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top