Conservatism defined? [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

Se7en

07-30-2003, 08:25 AM

A pretty good editorial here:

[quote]Conservative study reveals academic bias
Jonah Goldberg (back to web version)

July 30, 2003

A massive new study from Berkeley scientists at has found that political liberals have the following qualities in abundance:

- Cowardice and appeasement

- Comfort with confusion and ignorance

- Recklessness

- Indecisiveness and similar cognitive defects

- Terror mismanagement

In short, after an exhaustive research effort, the scientists concluded that the typical liberal is very much like Renfield, that sniveling, nasty, bug-eating sidekick to Dracula. This is why liberals always say, "Yethhh, master" to bullies and tyrants like Josef Stalin, Fidel Castro or Saddam Hussein: They are dim-witted, cowardly, nasty creatures who can never make up their minds. It's not me, science says so.

OK, I'm making this up. There is no such study scientifically "proving" that liberals are feckless crapweasels.

But there is a Berkeley study that purports to prove that conservatives are hard-wired in the brain to be closed-minded bullies. The study by a team of psychiatrists claims to show that conservatives are defined by five qualities: "Fear and aggression," "dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity," "uncertainty avoidance," the "need for cognitive closure" and "terror management."

According to the media summary put out by Berkeley's crack press office (and later pulled from its Web site), all "conservatives" share the same basic psychological wiring. They give four examples of four conservatives who share these attributes: Hitler, Mussolini, Rush Limbaugh and Ronald Reagan.

Now, this whole thing is what I like to call a pinata of asininity - bash it from any angle and from any distance and you will get some reward. But let me pick a few points.

First of all, Hitler and Mussolini weren't conservatives. Or at least, the idea that Mussolini and Hitler were "conservative" as we understand the term in the United States and Britain is very, very much in dispute among political scientists and intellectual historians.

For example, Hitler always claimed he was improving upon Marxism and socialism ("Nazi" does stand for National Socialism, you know). Mussolini was born into a socialist family, was a leading socialist journalist and thinker and was admired by Lenin. When Mussolini broke with the Socialist Party about WWI, he declared, "You think you can turn me out, but you will find I shall come back again. I am and shall remain a socialist and my convictions will never change! They are bred into my very bones."

I wanted to get that out of the way in part because I'm writing a book that covers much of this territory, but also because I have a low tolerance for anyone, let alone scientists, lumping American conservatives with socialist German mass-murderers. Call me thin-skinned, if you must.

Anyway, Jack Glaser, one of the lead authors of the Berkeley study, acknowledged in a media release that a study focused solely on why right wingers aren't right in the head might seem "partisan." But, he explained, there is a "host" of information available about conservatism and comparatively little about liberalism.

But why, exactly, haven't they studied why people are liberal? Perhaps it's because the profession thinks it's "abnormal" to be a conservative in the first place.

After all, psychiatrists study why people murder or why some people believe they're Napoleon or why they think Carrot Top is funny. But they don't study people who take showers. Why? Because taking a shower is normal, and therefore uninteresting. Perhaps it says something interesting about a profession that sees conservatism as so abnormal so as to be worth studying.

If you go back and look at the list of characteristics that define conservatism, you'll discover that it applies to liberals, too. Fear of ambiguity, a desire of cognitive closure, etc: These are human traits, not conservative ones.

Plenty of liberals refuse to accept that a factory closing can be a good thing or that something

TheMojoPin

07-30-2003, 09:08 AM

That was an absolutely ludicrous editorial.

The study itself is practically as laughable, but it has yet to have any of its points discussed IN context.

Ultimately, I feel the study is too limiting and tries to label a "group" that is far too broad idealogically, racially and psychologically. In short, it's absurd.

But that editorial was just as bad.

In short, after an exhaustive research effort, the scientists concluded that the typical liberal is very much like Renfield, that sniveling, nasty, bug-eating sidekick to Dracula. This is why liberals always say, "Yethhh, master" to bullies and tyrants like Josef Stalin, Fidel Castro or Saddam Hussein: They are dim-witted, cowardly, nasty creatures who can never make up their minds. It's not me, science says so.

OK, I'm making this up. There is no such study scientifically "proving" that liberals are feckless crapweasels.

What the fuck was that?!?

And the biggest bone of contention, the comparison between Rush, Reagan, Mussolini and Hitler, is such bunk. It IS a stupid comparison, but the way it's trumpeted is even worse. It's NOT comparing the men psychologically or directly by their actions. It's comparing them in the similarities in their rhetoric and political maneuverings. Maybe there are similarities, who knows? I'm sure as someone with liberal-leanings I could be lined up and somehow compared to plenty of scumbags in this manner...no doubt Hitler, given his socialist policies. That's not to say I'm the same as Hitler...or that Reagan is the same as Hitler. But that's what extreme liberals and conservatives BOTH want to hear.

In the end, it's a stupid study (That's impossibly inaccurate and overreaching) taken way, WAY out of context by the extremes on both sides. Now shut the fuck up and go to your rooms without any cake.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

Yerdaddy

07-30-2003, 11:57 AM

The study should have added that conservatives:

can dish it out but can't take it

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE ASS!

shamus mcfitzy

07-30-2003, 12:25 PM

OK, I'm making this up. There is no such study scientifically "proving" that liberals are feckless crapweasels.

if you read that sentence, it's not necessarilly saying that liberals are feckless crap weasels. Just that there is no study that proves that liberals are feckless crapweasels. In fact the way "prove" is put in quotes may show the opposite opinion.

The fact that the Berkley study was even posted is stupid because it just seems to be a way for "conservatives" to bash "liberals" for being close-minded, rather than bashing dirty Californians for being close-minded. Kill all the Californians!!!!!

Se7en

07-30-2003, 01:37 PM

The study should have added that conservatives:

can dish it out but can't take it

http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/html/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

In the end, it's a stupid study (That's impossibly inaccurate and overreaching) taken way, WAY out of context by the extremes on both sides. Now shut the fuck up and go to your rooms without any cake.

Oh come now. The Renfield comparison was, at least, pretty damn amusing.

<img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/captainamerica.jpg" width="300" height="100">
 
 
Is the Captain a member of the proud 2%?

TheMojoPin

07-30-2003, 03:11 PM

Bah.

I TRY to be the voice of reason...

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

FiveB247

07-30-2003, 04:00 PM

Anyone else find this thing annoying?
http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/html/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Se7en....you go girl...snap snap

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

Why practice democratic values when you can practice capitalism?

Death Metal Moe

07-30-2003, 05:56 PM

http://www.metallicabb.com/forum/images/smiles/hb.gif
http://www.darksoul7.com/cutecast/emoticons/115.gif
http://www.darksoul7.com/cutecast/emoticons/sex.gif
http://www.darksoul7.com/cutecast/emoticons/thefinger.gif
http://www.darksoul7.com/cutecast/emoticons/violent-smiley-084.gif

No, this is annoying.

<IMG SRC=http://unhallowed.com/sigs/CreepySig.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
DEATH FACTION/BACON FACTION 4 LIFE!!!
666%

nickeye

07-30-2003, 07:07 PM

Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature...

Can't argue with science.

Oh, wait; they culled? Make that SUPER-science.

<img src="http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/182800/eyeblink7.gif" width=230 height=100 alt="Ow. Quit it." title="Ow. Quit it.">

FiveB247

07-31-2003, 08:21 AM

I actually kinda like that Moe. Pretty neat.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

Why practice democratic values when you can practice capitalism?

high fly

08-02-2003, 09:44 AM

Moe = cool.

" and they ask me why I drink"

LiquidCourage

08-03-2003, 06:50 PM

Liberalism is an entire political philosophy based on being a leech, not taking responsibility for your actions, and just living like a complete jerkoff.

The Jerry Springer show is American liberalism in it's purest form.

TheMojoPin

08-03-2003, 07:15 PM

What are you gonna do about it, crybaby?

Cry?

Cry some more?

Cry again?

Crybaby.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

Se7en

08-03-2003, 07:23 PM

Dude, why did you do this.

It's just going to provoke about a half dozen smartass replies.

<img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/captainamerica.jpg" width="300" height="100">
 
 
Is the Captain a member of the proud 2%?

HBox

08-03-2003, 07:30 PM

It's just going to provoke about a half dozen smartass replies.

You see. Your side has just as many stupid people as my side.

Smartass reply #1.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

TheMojoPin

08-03-2003, 08:21 PM

I sway to the left because that's were all the sex, drugs and rock 'n roll ends up.

Politics, shmolitics. Follow the poon and the RAWK.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

Yerdaddy

08-03-2003, 08:41 PM

I was just thinking that study needed more examples. Thanks LC.

#2

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE ASS!

Se7en

08-04-2003, 07:53 AM

It's just going to provoke about a half dozen smartass replies.

You see. Your side has just as many stupid people as my side.

Smartass reply #1.

I disavow him as being on "my side".

<img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/captainamerica.jpg" width="300" height="100">
 
 
Is the Captain a member of the proud 2%?

high fly

08-04-2003, 10:27 AM

The way I see it, the difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals are looking for new solutions to the issues of the day. They believe that the old methods no longer apply and they are open to new ideas.
Conservatives believe that what we need to do is to get back to the good ol' tried and true solutions, that these newfangled solutions are what's screwing things up.
The conservatives who harken back to what the founding fathers intended have a problem in defining their opinions as conservative because what the founding fathers established was wildly liberal; so those conservatives are nostalgic for good ol' liberalism.
18th century conservatives were the ones on the side of the British empire and were occasionally subject to the practice of tar and feathering.

(and there you have it, my 1000th post. Loogout Mojo, I'm dead up on your ass....)

" and they ask me why I drink"

This message was edited by high fly on 8-4-03 @ 2:30 PM

Bergalad

08-04-2003, 04:31 PM

what the founding fathers established was wildly liberal
You are completely wrong. I am not even going to start counting the reasons on how wrong you are.

high fly

08-04-2003, 04:42 PM

I'm ready to debate the point.
The Tories, then as now, were the conservatives of their day.
Our republic was a radical shift away from the monarchies in europe then, indeed the word "radical" was often used to describe the early patriots.
To have a government that was to be the servant of the people was unthinkable, just the opposite of what had prevailed up till then. Such a radical departure was in no way "conserving" any old values, rather it was reflective of a whole new philosophy that included the natural rights of man that each is born with, that the government is to protect and not to grant.
Monarchies, by the way,in europe have also been considered to be on the conservative end of the political spectrum . Therefore, those who opposed them were certainly not conservative.

" and they ask me why I drink"

TheMojoPin

08-04-2003, 08:32 PM

High Fly IS right, Berg.

"Liberal & Conservative" are not static terms when it comes to describing particular political and social leanings of certain segments of the population.

Look at the Republicans leading up to, during and after the Civil War. Hardly fits the bill as modern "conservatism".

And neither notion today really harkens back to most of what the founding fathers established.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

Bergalad

08-05-2003, 10:00 AM

No, he's not.
The conservatives who harken back to what the founding fathers intended have a problem in defining their opinions as conservative because what the founding fathers established was wildly liberal;
The political landscape of today is completely different than that of 1780. The labels used currently for the political parties do not apply, and indeed have somewhat switched from their original meanings. It is correct to say that the FF's were proposing something radical, but not liberal in the sense of the word today. Did they propose welfare? Medicare? Those and other social programs are the liberal hallmark today, and to try and compare the FF's intentions to today's liberal agenda is wrong. What today's conservatives long for is a return to people being responsible for themselves, as the FF's had intended and the liberals have diminished.

El Mudo

08-05-2003, 11:33 AM

The way I see it, the difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals are looking for new solutions to the issues of the day. They believe that the old methods no longer apply and they are open to new ideas.

If "liberals are looking for new solutions to the issues of the day",

THEN WHY HAVE THEY HAD THE EXACT SAME MESSAGE WITH THE EXACT SAME TIRED RHETORIC FOR THE LAST 4O FREAKIN' YEARS?????!!!

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/images/28id.gif
It's been a good year for the roses..

TheMojoPin

08-05-2003, 11:37 AM

No, he's not.

No, he IS.

Check what I said he was right about.

It completely agrees with what YOU ended up saying.

The political landscape of today is completely different than that of 1780. The labels used currently for the political parties do not apply, and indeed have somewhat switched from their original meanings.

That's what I got from his post. The Founding Fathers were NOT liberals in the modern sense. But for the time, they might have been viewed as such. Not in the specifics as the terms defines today, but just in the sense that they wanted and fought for drastic and sweeping social and political change from the "status quo", which (Not necessarily for the better) is what liberals traditionally want, for whatever reason.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

TheMojoPin

08-05-2003, 11:41 AM

THEN WHY HAVE THEY HAD THE EXACT SAME MESSAGE WITH THE EXACT SAME TIRED RHETORIC FOR THE LAST 4O FREAKIN' YEARS?????!!!

Which is...?

We're not a giant supergroup with a universal agenda. Unless you can come up with something, I'd say that's just wishful thinking on your part.

But I've pointed this out in the past...modern liberals tend to fall under the "activist" category and conservatives under the "pundits/commentator" category. One side seems to want to "change" things ASAP (This is NOT saying that that's "right" or not) and the other seems more content to see where the chips may fall or hold on to what's established. To me, that seems to be the most base, fundamental difference between modern traditional conservatives and liberals. Liberals seem more pro-active and conservatives more reactionary. This isn't picking one over the other, that's just how it USUALLY seems. Am I wrong?

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

high fly

08-05-2003, 03:04 PM

As far as who was a conservative of the time, let's look at the words of Professor J.H. Plumb of Cambridge University, widely regarded as an authoritative scholar on 18th and 19th century British royalty:
[speaking of George III, the Stamp Act and the "American rebels"] ..."In consequence, the King's attitude began to polarize new attitudes in politics.He became the symbol of conservatism and reaction; his opponents, the men who thought that the liberties for which Wilkes and the Americans fought were essential, too, for all Englishmen, began to take a more radical attitude not only to the Crown but also to the very structure of English society.Naturally, the first effect of this was to disrupt the old political alignments; Whiggery began to break up into two groups, a right and a left wing; the Tories, who had been in opposition since 1714, now felt that they could support George III body and soul...GeorgeIII's own personality- his meddling interference and his blind, obstinate conservatism- sharpened many men's intention to reduce the powers of the Crown even further."

" and they ask me why I drink"

This message was edited by high fly on 8-5-03 @ 7:45 PM

high fly

08-05-2003, 03:44 PM

Did they propose welfare? Medicare?

We cannot transpose today's issues on people 250 years ago.
The 18th century equivalents of welfare and medicare were the natural rights of man being debated at that time.
That citizens could change the officers in government, that the government would be "of the people, by the people and for the people"; that we would have the rights codified in our Constitution, those were all radical, wildly radical ideas of the day. Those holding such ideas were opposed by the conservatives, the Tories who supported the Crown.
After the Revolution, when the FFs came together trying to form a government and all, as the debate
developed, there were different sides, that of John Adams was considered conservative and that of Jefferson was considered liberal or to the left on the political spectrum.

" and they ask me why I drink"

TheMojoPin

08-05-2003, 03:50 PM

high fly has been embiggened.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

sr71blackbird

08-05-2003, 04:16 PM

Liberalism is, by its nature, immature Conservatism. You can only pass one in route to the other. Disagree? Time to grow up

http://members.aol.com/canofsoup15/images/bdf%20copy.gif

Many Thanks Soup!

HBox

08-05-2003, 04:44 PM

Liberalism is, by its nature, immature Conservatism.

That doesn't make ANY sense.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

sr71blackbird

08-05-2003, 05:36 PM

See what I mean? Like a kid!

http://members.aol.com/canofsoup15/images/bdf%20copy.gif

Many Thanks Soup!

HBox

08-05-2003, 05:44 PM

Well, Professor Politico, tell me about the "nature" of liberalism.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

sr71blackbird

08-05-2003, 05:46 PM

I use to be liberal and had all liberal beliefs, and its easy to see how attractive liberalism is to the immature mind because having your needs taken care of by a larger force (government,parents, etc.).
When a person takes personality for their actions, they have to work at it and become an adult. Liberalism teaches dependence, while conservatism is defined by how people are made independent and thus free of government assistance. When you take responsibility for your actions, you are "grown up". A child is dependent because it simply doesnt have the intellectual fortitude to take its own actions into account. Im sorry to have to say it like this, but I have truly found this to be a factual statement.

http://members.aol.com/canofsoup15/images/bdf%20copy.gif

Many Thanks Soup!

HBox

08-05-2003, 05:51 PM

When a person takes personality for their actions, they have to work at it and become an adult.

OK!

But seriously. Here's what your doing. You are taking one issue (Welfare) and using it to define a whole ideology. Not even to mention that some liberals do not support unlimited welfare, or any welfare at all.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

sr71blackbird

08-05-2003, 06:03 PM

Look, I dont want to argue. I respect your right to have an opinion and as an american would defend your right to that opinion, even if I felt it was totally wrong, even unto my death, because I believe in Liberty and Freedom. But, I feel that Welfare has been absolutely horrible for the black community, as it taught them hatred to whites and forced their dependence on the party that favored their plight (Democrats). Being dependent on someone is hardly a way of liberating them, and thats my point. When I grew out of that ideology and saw it as I see it now, I realised how my beliefs were forcing others into a dependent state and this deprived them of Liberty and Freedom. Not all goverment assistance plans have no merit, I just wish there was more widespread cultural emphasis on individual responsibility.

http://members.aol.com/canofsoup15/images/bdf%20copy.gif

Many Thanks Soup!

Se7en

08-05-2003, 07:41 PM

high fly has been embiggened.

Has someone else been enjoying early season Simpsons reruns? ;p

<img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/captainamerica.jpg" width="300" height="100">
 
 
Is the Captain a member of the proud 2%?

Yerdaddy

08-05-2003, 09:01 PM

This is why I think this study is more or less accurate: because blackbird's ideology requires such massive oversimplification. Fist of all he has to boil down his view of liberalism to a simplistic analogy of welfare, which itself is a gross oversimplification. His view is, at its base, "dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity." First of all, liberalism is more than just a social safety net for the poor. It defines a set of views on all political issues, from economic rights, civil rights, crime and punishment, environmental policy, labor and corporate rights, foreign policy, and any other issue that can be defined as political. If liberals tended to oppose the Iraq war, how does "dependence" even fit into an understanding of that position? As for welfare, his understanding only makes sense in a stereotypical model of the able-bodied lazy welfare recipient. For those people who have mental or physical illness, or who take care of family members with illnesses, people who have been trained in a job that has been replaced by machines or cheap overseas labor and have to get more education or start an entry-level position to get back out of poverty, people who were raised by irresponsible parents, all the children in the welfare system now, all these people just don't fit into his model. For him, everyone has the same opportunities and hurdles that he has. He can't even address the question that HBox poses: What about liberals who aren't for unlimited welfare? That alone is too complex to fit his world-view so he avoids it. This gross oversimplification of issues, and a general reliance on blaming others and attacking those who see things differently, is his ideological view of the world. I'd say that this study's findings, "Fear and aggression, Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity, Uncertainty avoidance, Need for cognitive closure, and Terror management," pretty much difines the oppinions he's expressed here on the board. Of course I'd throw in xenophobia, arrogance and general intollerance to boot.

Not all conservatives fit this mold, and many liberals use the same fallacies and borrowed ideological dogma, but one of the things that generally applies to the two is that liberals tend to accept more complexity in their world view than conservatives. And considering that we are the third most populous country in the world, with roughly 280 million people, simplicity is no way to understand American polical issues.

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE ASS!

high fly

08-06-2003, 11:23 AM

Good ones, YERDADDY, HBOX.
Somehow, I don't think that SR71 was around in the 60s when so many of our welfare and other social programs were initiated, and so cannot guage what would have happened had the disenfranchised been merely told to simply pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and not look to government for any kind of help.
He didn't see the massive riots, the burning of large sections of cities, the looting and all, each night on the news, nor could he imagine what would have happened if that had intensified.
I go back to my original definition- a conservative generally wants to conserve the old order, and credits problems with deviating from the tried and true old fashioned ways; and so answers to problems of the day are to be found in getting back to those old methods, values, and traditions.
A liberal generally wants to find new solutions because the old ways don't work so well anymore, and need to be Upd@ted to apply to current conditions.

THEN WHY HAVE THEY HAD THE EXACT SAME MESSAGE WITH THE EXACT SAME TIRED RHETORIC FOR THE LAST 40 FRICKIN' YEARS?????!!!

You haven't been paying attention.
Some of the new ideas liberals have put forth in the last 40 years would include:
Welfare reform
Health care plan portability
Maternity leave
NAFTA
Ending nuclear testing
balanced budget
landmine ban
funding of dismantling and destruction of former Soviet nuke/chem/bio weapons
National Defense Preparedness Office to respond to chem/bio and /or computer attacks
Department of Homeland Security....

There's a few, just for starters.
For the next 40 years, please pay closer attention, EL MUDO.

" and they ask me why I drink"

A.J.

08-06-2003, 11:33 AM

Some of the new ideas liberals have put forth in the last 40 years would include:

NAFTA

A Republican Congress passed that. Pro-union liberals like Jesse Jackson and David Bonior opposed it.

balanced budget

Gramm-Rudman-Hollings were hardly liberal Senators.

funding of dismantling and destruction of former Soviet nuke/chem/bio weapons

Nunn-Lugar were hardly liberal Senators.

Department of Homeland Security

This agency was proposed by the George W. Bush administration and authorized by a Republican Congress.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">
A Skidmark production.

Red Sox Nation

high fly

08-06-2003, 11:59 AM

Good points AJ, but still many liberals supported those measures.
NAFTA- Bill Clinton was solidly behind it and gladly signed the bill.
Balanced budget- Gramm/Rudman/Hollings controlled spending to help get us to a surplus, but strictly speaking, was not a balanced budget bill (I'd sure like to know what happened to it, though. Did it expire or something?) again Clinton supported it and other measures to get us there.
Nunn/Lugar- the same. Perhaps it escaped your notice, but the current president proposed NO money for this program, and fought funding it in the current budget. Again, a key element was the statecraft exercised by Clinton.
Department Of Homeland Security -opposed for months by the Bush administration until it became clear that it would pass.Not originally proposed by the administration.

That leaves the 5 others that I came up with off the top of my head.
AJ, I'm sure you could add to the list.

" and they ask me why I drink"

A.J.

08-06-2003, 12:09 PM

Department Of Homeland Security -opposed for months by the Bush administration until it became clear that it would pass.Not originally proposed by the administration.

8 OCT 01 President establishes Office of Homeland Security (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011008.html)

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">
A Skidmark production.

Red Sox Nation

TheMojoPin

08-06-2003, 12:27 PM

Has someone else been enjoying early season Simpsons reruns?

Damn right.

Of course, now my excitement over the season three DVD has all but faded away.

D'OH.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

TheMojoPin

08-06-2003, 12:33 PM

But, I feel that Welfare has been absolutely horrible for the black community, as it taught them hatred to whites and forced their dependence on the party that favored their plight (Democrats). Being dependent on someone is hardly a way of liberating them, and thats my point.

But there are many, MANY more white people on welfare than blacks...are you saying they can somehow "handle" it while the blacks can't? And the majority of blacks are not dependent on welfare. It does not exist to just help them. It's there for all Americans. There are just more blacks in the BLACK population on welfare than any other group, but not more on welfare in general. Most people on welfare are only temporarly "dependent" on welfare. Again, this sentiment that most or all people on welfare are either willfully abusing or relying only on it or always about to do that is something I don't understand. Welfare abusers are in the far MINORITY of the people using it.

And along these lines, are you suggesting that removing welfare would leave the blacks on a level playing field? Because that's simply not the case.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

high fly

08-06-2003, 01:26 PM

(no shit) This morning my next door neighbor (who happens to be black) had a flat tire, but no jack for the car he just bought, so I was happy to loan him mine.

" and they ask me why I drink"

El Mudo

08-06-2003, 04:27 PM

The failure of Liberalism can be simply elaborated in two pictures:

http://www.childrennow.org/photos/gray-davis.jpg

And

http://www.gunowners.org/news/nwspho78.jpg

Thanks for the budget crisis you left in my state (just like the one left in my county) Glendenning you rat bastard...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/images/28id.gif
It's been a good year for the roses..

This message was edited by El Mudo on 8-6-03 @ 8:29 PM

HBox

08-06-2003, 04:42 PM

This is stupid, but I'll play this game. The failure of conservatism can be best described in this picture:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38378000/jpg/_38378941_bushap150.jpg

Thanks for taking all our jobs! I'm sure our health care, education funding, and civil liberties are next!

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

TheMojoPin

08-07-2003, 07:44 AM

The failure of Liberalism can be simply elaborated in two pictures

No, it can't be.

It would just as stupid as me saying "Bush is a moron, so I hate all Republicans!"

And you STILL haven't explained what the fuck you were specifically talking about here.

THEN WHY HAVE THEY HAD THE EXACT SAME MESSAGE WITH THE EXACT SAME TIRED RHETORIC FOR THE LAST 4O FREAKIN' YEARS?????!!!

Or did it just sound good coming from the mouth of a no-nothing pundit?

"Real issues?!? FUCK THAT. I've got CATCHPHRASES and BUZZWORDS!!! Feel the BURN!"

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 8-7-03 @ 11:47 AM

El Mudo

08-07-2003, 11:47 AM

And you STILL haven't explained what the fuck you were specifically talking about here

1.Run up huge deficits with massive amounts of spending

2. Jack up taxes to pay for said spending

3. Blame Conservatives

Besides, how many times do you hear every single time taxes are going to be cut "tax cuts for the wealthy" or "old people are going to eat dog food" or other assorted crap?

They had 40 years to do what they said they were going to do. After 40 years of the Left in power, how come we aren't living in paradise?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/images/28id.gif
It's been a good year for the roses..

TheMojoPin

08-07-2003, 12:01 PM

Alright, cut the shit.

If you're gonna honestly act like "they blame conservatives" is somehow a legitimate and ONE-SIDED criticism, this is doomed before it began. First of all, people on BOTH sides basically make their bones these days by just finger-pointing and blaming the other side, so don't make the laughable attempt at trying to say that's only a "liberal thing." All politicians seem to know these days is passing their dirty, fucked-up bucks over to the "other guy/side".

Second of all, raising taxes to pay for a naturally occuring deficit in a spend-crazy country (Which has only been increased just as much by the Bushes as Clinton did, and Reagan did more of it than any of them) IS a debatable issue, but until the answer somehow becomes something other than the infinitely moronic, "paying LESS will fix everything!", it's pretty much the only choice. I don't like it, but that's what we ALWAYS come back to no matter who's running things. Bush the 1st found that out the hard way. And like I said with the spending, since when do liberals out-spend the conservatives? They seem to be pretty nexk and neck for government financial waste...or is this a way of saying "I don't like what they spend it on"?

And again with the catchphrases. It's political junk. Both sides use them. Just ask conservatives how they think "people will take away their guns" and "why won't anyone think of our moral values?!?" Same difference, chief.

And finally...40 years of power?

OK, 40 years...back to 1963. You had Johnson until 1968. There's four years. Then...uhm...oh yeah! four years of Carter! SCORE! OK, now let's see...eight years of Clinton...and...oh. Oh, that's it. But that's just sixteen years. Hell, I'll be generous and even add on Kennedy's three years and Johnson's "extra" year. Shit, no, that's still just twenty. Looks like it's split almost right down the middle with conservatives running the other twenty four years with a wildly fluctuating Congress/House and a lergely conservative Supreme Court for nearly twenty of those years. Oh, damn. Where's that "40 years of power" again?

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 8-7-03 @ 4:04 PM

A.J.

08-07-2003, 12:07 PM

And finally...40 years of power?

The years the Democrats controlled the House. They controlled the Senate for almost as long -- except for the first couple of years of Reagan's first term.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">
A Skidmark production.

Red Sox Nation

TheMojoPin

08-07-2003, 12:16 PM

Fair enough. Though you're pretty much automatically handicapped if you don't have the White House, so they were still ultimately limited for 24 of those years.

The Republicans have still held 14 years out of those forty (And the current Congress), and their Presidents had 24 of the 40, so I'm not for a second going with this "40 years of power to do whatever they wanted" horseshit.

Here's a link to the Senate's hsitorical timeline, in case anyone was curious...

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 8-7-03 @ 4:18 PM

A.J.

08-07-2003, 12:27 PM

I agree. But with the Democrats in the majority of both Houses, they had 40 years to write tax laws, appropriate monies, and override Presidential vetoes.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">
A Skidmark production.

Red Sox Nation

TheMojoPin

08-07-2003, 12:56 PM

How do you figure? I'll readily admit I suck at math, but isn't that just 26 years that that could have happened? And did they ALWAYS have the House and Congress at the SAME time during those 26 years?

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

Yerdaddy

08-07-2003, 03:25 PM

How old is the "states rights" message?

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE ASS!

A.J.

08-08-2003, 02:54 AM

How do you figure? I'll readily admit I suck at math, but isn't that just 26 years that that could have happened? And did they ALWAYS have the House and Congress at the SAME time during those 26 years?

I was speaking in terms of dominating the Legislative Branch. Congress's power is in making laws so when, for example, the Democrats had control of the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committee, they had free rein to shape tax law. Now should the President decide to veto these proposals, they had the majority to overturn his veto. I'm speaking very hypothetically of course.

In theory, party control of the Executive and Legislative Branch is ideal: consider Reagan's first term when his economic package was passed. On the other hand, consider Clinton's first term when he couldn't get health care through.

If memory serves, I believe since say 1955, the same party controlled the White House and Congress in the Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan (1st term), Clinton (1st term) and W's administrations.

How old is the "states rights" message?

Since the days of South Carolina Senator John C. Calhoun -- whom I believe Strom Thurmond may have served with.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">
A Skidmark production.

Red Sox Nation

This message was edited by AJinDC on 8-8-03 @ 7:01 AM

high fly

08-08-2003, 06:45 AM

Let's not oversimplify.
When the Democrats held the majority in Congress, they could not just ignore the Republicans and do whatever they wanted.
Over those 40 years, in how many did either party hold a super-majority?
And how many votes were there where no one from one party voted with the other party?
Being in the majority is an advantage, sure, but no matter which party has held the presidency and/or the majority in congress, there still has had to be cooperation to get things done.
I can still remember Reagan and Tip O'Neal coming out of meetings laughing and all, even though they were at opposite ends of the political spectrum.
This kind of cooperation is missing today, and the country is worse off because of it.

" and they ask me why I drink"

TheMojoPin

08-08-2003, 08:29 AM

Thanks for the clarifications, AJ. I'll be the first to admit I'm not 100% as to all the processes of our government, so I appreciate it.

And high fly, check the link I posted above. There were some terms where the Democrats had close to or even more than 20 more votes than the Republicans. I don't know if the Republicans ever had that large a margin.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

high fly

08-09-2003, 10:05 AM

MOJO- good link, but still, given the wide range of factions and the lack of party discipline, even with a super-majority, it's been damned near impossible to get all the Democrats to vote strictly along party lines.
It is likewise difficult for the Republicans, but with the ascendency of the hardass right wingers, there is not as much diversity of opinion in the GOP.
Though i have a (gulp, cringe) few years on you, I don't recall the Republicans ever having a super-majority.

By the way, on the link, the party of Jefferson is listed as the "Republican" party, I've been reading a bit lately on this period in history, and that party is often referred to as the "Democratic Republicans." Back then it was the more progressive party, as opposed to the Federalists, who were more conservative.

Here's another nugget: Liberal chicks---much much better in bed...

" and they ask me why I drink"

TheMojoPin

08-09-2003, 10:39 AM

MOJO- good link, but still, given the wide range of factions and the lack of party discipline, even with a super-majority, it's been damned near impossible to get all the Democrats to vote strictly along party lines.

Excellent point. The only thing Democrats and liberals (And there usually IS a difference or 12,000) like disagreeing with more than a republican or a conservative is each other. Over EVERYTHING. Despite how some seem to think we move only in a herd mentality.

And what's a "few years", pops? Ya old dirty bastard...

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 8-9-03 @ 5:01 PM