Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - G.I. Bill

In response to G.I. Bill posted by pink101:

You've side-stepped my main point to take a shot at the war in Iraq. For the record, I do believe that "cost to the taxpayer" should be a factor in deciding whether or not the nation can go to war. As to whether the war in Iraq was/is justified...you've ranted on that point in numerous discussion threads on this site. I think everyone knows where you come down on that question.

Returning to the main issue...I believe the nation should do everything it can to take care of its veterans. And I think we've made great strides since the era of World War I, when returning veterans barely got even a "thank-you."

» pink101 - Conservatives and Rights

In response to Conservatives and Rights posted by BrianTubbs:

.
Well, I get the sense that George W. Bush is accepted as a Conservative along with his gang members, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfield, et all.
.
These men are all Straussians as far as I can see and they believe in a world dominated by America's military might. That precludes the ideas of democracy as far as I can see. They would like to impose a strict regime of discipline on citizens across the board. The Patriot Act is an example of legalized attempt to limit liberty. Another executive administration like the Bush gang and our Bill of Rights would be down the tubes.
.
.

.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Conservatives and Rights

In response to Conservatives and Rights posted by pink101:

.
Another executive administration like the Bush gang and our Bill of Rights would be down the tubes.
.
That was Bush's real 'mission accomplished' - his ONLY one. His Patriot Act, as you noted, nullified the Bill of Rights (save the one about soldiers taking over your house). Folks keep talking about the Bill of Rights as if it still exists. It doesn't.

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - Hyperbole?

In response to Conservatives and Rights posted by Migisi:

Folks keep talking about the Bill of Rights as if it still exists. It doesn't.

This is either hyperbole or (with due respect) you have a very disjointed sense of reality.

With all the Bush-bashing I see here and other places on the Internet and on TV and in print and on and on and on....how can anyone say that we don't still have rights to free speech, assembly, etc.?

If you want to know where free speech and/or real, true dissent no longer exists, try North Korea, Cuba, or China (or, to some extent, Venezuela). But we still have it here in the United States. If Bush is trying to take away speech rights and dissent rights in the USA, he's done a terrible job.

» Brian Tubbs - Conservatives and Rights

In response to Conservatives and Rights posted by pink101:

Well, I get the sense that George W. Bush is accepted as a Conservative along with his gang members, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfield, et all.

The consensus is that George W. Bush is a "neo-conservative." He's conservative in some areas, but not in all areas.

These men are all Straussians as far as I can see and they believe in a world dominated by America's military might.

Not sure that Straussians would agree this is their philosophy, but okay...

That precludes the ideas of democracy as far as I can see. They would like to impose a strict regime of discipline on citizens across the board.

Hmmmmm...it also precludes people like Castro and Hugo Chavez from laying any claim to the "democratic" label.

If you're going to say this about Bush, be consistent, Pink. Be consistent.

The Patriot Act is an example of legalized attempt to limit liberty. Another executive administration like the Bush gang and our Bill of Rights would be down the tubes.

Hugo Chavez has done FAR MORE to curtail the rights of Venezuela's dissenters than Bush could even DREAM of doing. Be consistent, Pink.

If Bush is sending the Bill of Rights down the tubes in America, then Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro (using YOUR line of reasoning as reflected here) are among the greatest oppressors in world history.

But YOU will try to justify and explain away Castro and Chavez, and yet you will cut no slack for Bush. Why?

Because you AGREE with the "ends" pursued by Castro, Chavez, and other communist totalitarians. You do not agree with Bush's "ends." It's just that simple.

» pink101 - Conservatives and Rights

In response to Conservatives and Rights posted by BrianTubbs:

.
But YOU will try to justify and explain away Castro and Chavez, and yet you will cut no slack for Bush. Why?
.
Easy. Bush is the president of the United States of America which, if I'm not mistaken, has a nomocratic Constitution.
.
Those other countries are sovereign in their own right. Live and let live, that's what I say.
.
Because you AGREE with the "ends" pursued by Castro, Chavez, and other communist totalitarians. You do not agree with Bush's "ends." It's just that simple.
.
That's a crock! Where have I said that I agree with the "ends" of any leaders? If you have the ability to edit that post, it would be good for you to drop that line. It is an unfair statement and not based on any truth.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - First Principles

"Conservatives & First Principles" - an op-ed on the subject of what makes a "conservative" a "conservative"...

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/David...

» pink101 - First Principles

In response to First Principles posted by BrianTubbs:
.
What seems to make a Conservative is that they can easily be buffaloed by the corpocratic machine that is in control of our government in Washington.
.
Right now, our economy is going through a serious problem for many REAL Americans. Of course, the picture is bright and rosy for the multinationals--they're quite happy.
.
Think of the REAL estate situation and the way home values are crashing and how so many are losing their homes to foreclosures. Money is money--its value fluctuates up and down. But, REAL estate--property--is real and its value is constant even though the dollars involved fluctuate.
.
For some time, REAL estate developers have been reaching out into rural areas turning dormant land into suburban home sites. Where acres were purchased for hundreds of dollars, home sites were created and sold for thousands. New houses were built at record rates as urban areas were turned into slums with all the resultant troubles in cities across the land. The big multinational financiers saw an opportunity for REAL profits and they jumped at the chance with predatory greed.
.
F.I.R.E. is an anacronym for Finance, Insurance, and REAL Estate and it created one of the biggest economic bubbles our national economy has ever known. And, bubbles are bound to burst and this one is now bursting.
.
So! What is happening? The financiers are calling in their mortgages as the buyers are going into default. Those financiers have traded their dollars for REAL estate.
.
Basically, they are reaping one heck of a harvest at a great cost to the American economy; but, it isn't hurting the financiers even a little bit.
.
And, where are the Conservatives? Why, they're in the cheering section for the multinationals. How stupid can they get? Or is that dupid?
.
What we need is a massive rethinking about home financing in the American economic system--one in which the government finances home mortgages. Capitalism has made a stinking mess out of it. Now its time for a socialized system of government home financing to come to the rescue. But, the Washington lobbyists won't let that happen. Where or where is the Bailey Credit Union when greedy old man Potter is cleaning up?
.
And, that is just one of the reasons why we need a change in Washington. A REAL change.
.
The same is true of health care where we need a single payer system. Think of the rising costs of health care as it spirals out of sight. Who benefits? Not the American who lives in your shoes. Is it better to pay the price in insurance premiums to the multinationals or to the government in taxes? The difference has to do with who gets covered for health care.
.
Health Care should be seen as a right--not as a benefit for those who can afford the high premiums being charged.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Why be a Conservative?

This op-ed by John Hawkins should interest those of you trying to grapple with what makes a person a "conservative."

"Why I Am a Conservative" by John Hawkins

Long ago, when I was a mushy headed moderate, I studied conservatism and liberalism to try to figure out what the best philosophy was for my life and for my country. After doing that, I became a conservative because...

* I don't think some politician in Washington who has never held a job outside of politics in his entire life, has a better handle on what to do with my money than I do.

Read the rest of the article at the link below...

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnH...

» pink101 - More Accurately

.
I'm not sure the word, conservative, is descriptive of the basis of Republican politics.
.
There is a confusion that contributes to the fact that so many, so-called, liberals think of themselves as being conservative in many ways. The idea that to be conservative is to want to hold on to foundational values for which society is formed in the first place--First Principles. There is a sense in which liberals see themselves as being more conservative that any others. I know that I see myself as being quite conservative when it comes to political values and rights.
.
Something more tendentious exists. I don't think Conservative is the opposite of Liberal. So, to set up a Conservative vs Liberal contest might amount to creating a straw man scenario.
.
More to the point of the discussions held here, the contest is between the ideas of Liberalism and Republicanism. Whereas the Liberal holds the view that society is formed for the common good of society, Republicanism holds that society provides the stage for specialized groups to pursue their goals and objectives as legal persons with rights at the expense of individual rights--group members have more strength than any individual can exert. Thus, a corporation is able to work its will over the interests of any individual based on its power over the individual.
.
And, this is expressed in present day politics in that our government has been taken over by corporate interests which claim the mantle of conservatism when in fact, they are oligarchic in nature. Republican in the sense that groups are represented rather than individuals which would be democratic. Republicanism has come to be a commercialization of the democratic process.
.
So liberalism would provide a society more representative of common interests whereas republicanism would provide a society more representative of special interest groups. Liberals would be more supportive of universal health care and Republicans would be more supportive of corporations that provide health care insurance policies.
.

-- posted by pink101