US Elections 2012 Part I: The Primaries/Caucus

[Haak]

Can't you be conservative in other areas instead of being socially conservative?

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Haak

Can't you be conservative in other areas instead of being socially conservative?

1. Yes
2. being socially conservative doesn't mean complete idiocy. Several of my clients are on conservative socially but finds the current batch of tea party conservatives disgusting.

[Mr. DJ]

Originally Posted by Xagzan

Well, we already knew the GOP is against critical thinking (can't let the voters see the harm they're actually doing to the country!), but they've now made it official.

I seriously don't want to believe that...

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Haak

Can't you be conservative in other areas instead of being socially conservative?

Why does it matter, if the GOP could have Dark Ages level anti-thought statements in their official platform?

Can you honestly say "I want to support fiscal conservatism, so I am okay with my children growing up being dumb?"

This isn't some factional idea of the GOP; this is the official 2012 political platform of Texas GOP.

I don't know about you, but saving some money seems to be inconsequential when you have to, in exchange, raise your children to be retards. Is it worth the cost?

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Can you honestly say "I want to support fiscal conservatism, so I am okay with my children growing up being dumb?"

Maybe you are missing the point, he can be a fiscal conservative, that does not mean he supports the GOP atm. I am a fiscal conservative and I would not support the GOP (give a chanve to vote and I would no doubt give a vote to Obama). From what I have read here Vexx is also a fiscal conservative that does not endorse the neo-con agenda.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

Maybe you are missing the point, he can be a fiscal conservative, that does not mean he supports the GOP atm. I am a fiscal conservative and I would not support the GOP (give a chanve to vote and I would no doubt give a vote to Obama). From what I have read here Vexx is also a fiscal conservative that does not endorse the neo-con agenda.

Well, that's the thing. What does fiscal conservative have anything to do with social conservative?

They were never related; in fact social conservatism used to be more Dem's thing. GOP start up about fiscal conservatism as their core, but that's now down the drain and it has been replaced by social conservatives.

You can be a hard core religious fanatic and still be a communist; ask the Soviet Union. In the end, when I say "Conservative" with a capital C, I meant social conservatives.

[Vexx]

I think countries should run a well-managed budget. It doesn't have to balance any more than one balances a home budget when they take out a loan to improve/remodel their house. I also think the community should share the costs of those functions that benefit the community. That would include roads, police, *EDUCATION*, *HEALTHCARE*, and making sure people have access to the tools/skills they need to be self-sufficient.

The current crop of jackasses calling themselves "conservatives" are not fiscal conservatives they're plutocrats and robber barons. They often ARE social conservative radicals because that couples in nicely with the "we end up with all the power and money" angle. They definitely MANIPULATE the 'conservative peasants' ... the ones we most often see on the Internet and forums. Those are "useful idiots" for the 0.01%

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

In the end, when I say "Conservative" with a capital C, I meant social conservatives.

I think consevatives find that a misrepresentation, what you want to say is republican or neo-conservative (neo-con for short, con is the irony).

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

I think consevatives find that a misrepresentation, what you want to say is republican or neo-conservative (neo-con for short, con is the irony).

I understand that you think I am being unfair. But with your "neo-cons" actually running the entire GOP, wave the conservative banner, and shout the loudest, I can't think of them as a mere small faction. They are running the place, so they get to have the name.

[Vexx]

yeah, I just call myself a fiscally conservative progressive these days..... though my attitudes haven't changed hardly at all since the 70s....

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Vexx

yeah, I just call myself a fiscally conservative progressive these days..... though my attitudes haven't changed hardly at all since the 70s....

Yeah, it is the same with clothing, suddenly what you wear decades ago becames trendy and people say "you changed to fit better with the times"

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

They are ruining the place, so they get to have the name!?

There, changed it for clarity

[monsta666]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I think countries should run a well-managed budget. It doesn't have to balance any more than one balances a home budget when they take out a loan to improve/remodel their house. I also think the community should share the costs of those functions that benefit the community. That would include roads, police, *EDUCATION*, *HEALTHCARE*, and making sure people have access to the tools/skills they need to be self-sufficient.

I am not sure this should always be the case. Keynesian economics is been getting a bad rep recently because when people think of Keynesian economics they think of deficit spending when in reality all he advocated is that public spending was to be counter cyclic to the business cycle. In other words, during a boom period government spending should be reduced so the government can accumulate a surplus. During a recession however government spending is increased to counter the reduced spending in the private sector. This creates a deficit. However that shouldn't be a problem IF the government was accumulating a surplus during the boom years.

To use your house analogy, when you have a job you save some money in the bank (which equals government surplus) just in case something bad happens. If you build up a good nest egg then you can use those savings should you lose your job or fall in hard times. Thus the standard of living does not drop too much. And plus those funds can be used to make yourself more marketable to the changing work environment (deficit spending could be used to rebuild ageing infrastructure that is needed for the future and will pay for itself in the coming years). The big problem though is most governments do not practice Keynes during the boom years as they like to spend and always want to expand their departments. This need for spending does not really end in a recession either so that's why you get huge debts over time. This pattern of overspending has been repeated time and time again although most governments will assure you that this time is different or somehow they are more enlightened than previous governments. This time is different are one of the most dangerous words you can hear in finance.

Another thing, governments like to please the masses and cuts or taxes will not get you elected. Easier just to give them what they want and borrow extra to pay for those programs. As for the debt, well that is the problem of the next president. If the debt is getting too much then you print money and kick the can down the rope hoping the hot potatoes don't fall on you but on the "next guy". Look at the US and look at the EU. They are all doing the same thing. The US may watch with glee at how stupid the EU governments are (and it is true a lot of their actions are moronic) but the underlying fundamentals with debts and deficits are just as bad. The only real difference is the US has a printing press unlike Greece, Spain etc. Oh and also the fact that the markets have not really sussed that there is no way the US can pay off all that debt.

[Xagzan]

Originally Posted by Mr. DJ

I seriously don't want to believe that...

It's the only way to keep the serfs in line and voting for them, after all.

[Ithekro]

Originally Posted by Xagzan

It's the only way to keep the serfs in line and voting for them, after all.

What I find interesting is that in talking with serious conservatives that pretty much hate Obama and hated Clinton, that believe the same thing is happening, but it is the Democrats wanting to keep the serfs in line and voting for them.

I guess it really is all just a matter of perspective.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

What I find interesting is that in talking with serious conservatives that pretty much hate Obama and hated Clinton, that believe the same thing is happening, but it is the Democrats wanting to keep the serfs in line and voting for them.

I guess it really is all just a matter of perspective.

I'm not going to deny there are "sound bite" flocks on both sides but unbiased research tends to bring the much greater weight down on the Republican "serfs" on being misinformed, uninformed, or ill-informed on facts.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

What I find interesting is that in talking with serious conservatives that pretty much hate Obama and hated Clinton, that believe the same thing is happening, but it is the Democrats wanting to keep the serfs in line and voting for them.

I guess it really is all just a matter of perspective.

Like having Critical Thinking being classified as an enemy of the GOP?

Well, yeah. Technically Democrats are trying to raise education levels because it improves democratic votes the more learning you do. So if GOP want to accuse Dems for trying to make Americans too smart to vote Republican, I say Dems are guilty as charged.

[Ithekro]

They tend to think of higher education as socialist brain washing, and that the schools today don't teach practical skills. But then they also tend to thing in rural terms. And they tend to be proud of it.

They also tend to be patriotic in the old fashion style of flag waving, founding fathers, and have at lease a assemblance of Christian beliefs (not hardcore Bible thumpers) based on the country being founded with Christian ideals (but not church rules).

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

They tend to think of higher education as socialist brain washing, and that the schools today don't teach practical skills. But then they also tend to thing in rural terms. And they tend to be proud of it.

They also tend to be patriotic in the old fashion style of flag waving, founding fathers, and have at lease a assemblance of Christian beliefs (not hardcore Bible thumpers) based on the country being founded with Christian ideals (but not church rules).

That excuse doesn't stand. The GOP platform made it very clear; they support Parental Authority. As in, you think what your parents think. It is also about "Not challenging Fixed Beliefs".
To even have fixed beliefs requires that the person be stupid. Why even bother to have the Bible translated into English instead of keeping it in Latin, if you aren't even going to read it and make up your own minds?

What you are saying is just words, not what is happening in reality. And the reality is the GOP Texas Political platform of 2012.

[Ithekro]

I am speaking of the ones I tend to encounter in California and Oregan.

I am fairly sure they could care less about what the GOP platform is or is not. They spend most of their time looking at what they see as wrong or disasterous for the country in the Democractic platform.

[ganbaru]

A tax or a penalty? Romney, Obama camps debate healthcare ruling
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...85S1G920120629