conservatives v. socialists..........

[Andy]

Yes, of course it might.

And, while it is possible that politicians already have the same positions favored by their corporate sponsors, it is equally likely that they tend to tell people what they want to hear, and vote according to what is most likley to get them enough money to run another campaign. That isn't necessarily the fault of the pol, as there is no way to get elected without a lot of money, and no way to get a lot of money unless the donors expect that the pol will vote their way. What all of that means, of course, is that it is money rather than ideology, that runs Washington.

This is news to you? Welcome to politics. In any nation, at any point in Earths history, or future, politics and money go hand in hand. There is no way to change it, stop it, curtail it, limit it or anything.

That said, I wouldn't accept that ideology is not a driving force. But rather that people support, with money, those politicians that have an ideology they subscribe to. I gave money to Bush in 2000 because I supported tax cuts. He supported it to begin with, that's why I gave him money.

Where, for example, does McCain stand on the use of ethanol as motor fuel? Is he against it, as he told audiences in Arizona, or for it, as he told people in the corn belt?

Yeah, clearly this was a clintonesk moment. There is no question that McCain is against Ethanol Subsidies. As in, no question. Granted he did say that Ethanol is important to our future and blaw blaw blaw... but he never supported Ethanol mandates or subsidies ever. You can check his voting record, or in any speech, and he has never supported the Federal government mandating use of Ethanol, or subsidies for making it. So he may have softened his imagine, but he never changed his views law wise.

I can remember Colin Powel standing in front of the camera telling the voters where he stood on all of the major issues of the day. I hoped for a moment that such a person would actually run and might even have a chance to win, but, no, no one is going to win an election by actually taking a stand on the major issues and telling the voters what that stand is. That simply is not how leaders get elected.

That is very true. But then, that's OUR fault. We don't want to hear that hard positions must be taken. We don't want to hear that somethings can not be done. We don't want to face the truth of our situation. So instead we listen to empty words by ambiguous people who simply say "yes we can" without saying what they claim we can do.

Anytime a person does take a hard stand on truth and issues, we attack them relentlessly for doing so, only to find out later they were right. Bush Lied and People Died. Or McCarthyism... Soviet spies were in the state department. If you want to be popular, stand for nothing, and get as many girls as you can to service you in the white house, while redefining 'is' and saying you didn't inhale. You want to be hated, stand for your beliefs, and watch the public pick up stones.

 

[PLC1]

This is news to you? Welcome to politics. In any nation, at any point in Earths history, or future, politics and money go hand in hand. There is no way to change it, stop it, curtail it, limit it or anything.

No, it's not news to me. I've been railing about it on this and other forums for a long time now. While it would be difficult to curtail it, and probably impossible to stop it, there are some steps that could (but probably won't) be taken.

That said, I wouldn't accept that ideology is not a driving force. But rather that people support, with money, those politicians that have an ideology they subscribe to. I gave money to Bush in 2000 because I supported tax cuts. He supported it to begin with, that's why I gave him money.

Did he disappoint you by passing tax cuts while increasing spending? Had he held the line and kept spending to what the previous administration was spending, even had he and his Republican Congress increased spending as much as the cost of living to keep up with inflation, there would have been a surplus, not a deficit.

Yeah, clearly this was a clintonesk moment. There is no question that McCain is against Ethanol Subsidies. As in, no question. Granted he did say that Ethanol is important to our future and blaw blaw blaw... but he never supported Ethanol mandates or subsidies ever. You can check his voting record, or in any speech, and he has never supported the Federal government mandating use of Ethanol, or subsidies for making it. So he may have softened his imagine, but he never changed his views law wise.

I have no doubt that what you're saying is true. Why did he lie to the folks in Nebraska? (Rhetorical question: All pols lie).

That is very true. But then, that's OUR fault. We don't want to hear that hard positions must be taken. We don't want to hear that somethings can not be done. We don't want to face the truth of our situation. So instead we listen to empty words by ambiguous people who simply say "yes we can" without saying what they claim we can do.

Exactly. We have met the enemy, and he is us. We want to be told what we want to hear, and won't elect someone who tells us the hard truth. That's why we don't hear about the real challenges facing this nation in the future, and what should be done to meet them.

Anytime a person does take a hard stand on truth and issues, we attack them relentlessly for doing so, only to find out later they were right. Bush Lied and People Died. Or McCarthyism... Soviet spies were in the state department. If you want to be popular, stand for nothing, and get as many girls as you can to service you in the white house, while redefining 'is' and saying you didn't inhale. You want to be hated, stand for your beliefs, and watch the public pick up stones.

I mostly agree with that. McCarthyism was simply a witch hunt, which I'm sure you won't believe. Other than that, we're on the same page.

 

[Andy]

No, it's not news to me. I've been railing about it on this and other forums for a long time now. While it would be difficult to curtail it, and probably impossible to stop it, there are some steps that could (but probably won't) be taken.

I'm amused. What would you propose?

Did he disappoint you by passing tax cuts while increasing spending? Had he held the line and kept spending to what the previous administration was spending, even had he and his Republican Congress increased spending as much as the cost of living to keep up with inflation, there would have been a surplus, not a deficit.

No and yes. I have no problem with tax cuts. That's MY money to begin with. I'll never have an issue with money being given back to whom it rightfully belongs to... namely us, the public. I have a problem with overspending.

So yeah over spending, and only over spending, does disappoint me. But in reality, the same could be said for every single democrats or republican since WW2, yes? A good number of Republicans are liberals in favor of larger more expansive government, just like nearly all democrats. Jim Jeffers anyone?

I have no doubt that what you're saying is true. Why did he lie to the folks in Nebraska? (Rhetorical question: All pols lie).

Well this tips on another issue about 'lying'. I support people getting out of poverty. I have personally helped people who were poor for that reason. However, I'm completely against Section 8, public housing, food stamps and welfare. As in I'm against forced support. Am I lying then if I say I support poor people? Some would say I am because I do not support theft of money through taxes, and doling it out in federal programs.

That said, clearly he wanted to lessen his critics of his anti-subsidies policy. At least he never changed his stance on Ethanol mandates or subsidies.

Exactly. We have met the enemy, and he is us. We want to be told what we want to hear, and won't elect someone who tells us the hard truth. That's why we don't hear about the real challenges facing this nation in the future, and what should be done to meet them.

More importantly, we have shifted the blame, and attempted to pin it on one political party. The Big Oil party, or the Big Company party, or the Rich People party. It's just a way of denying responsibility, and ignoring the real cause is us.

I mostly agree with that. McCarthyism was simply a witch hunt, which I'm sure you won't believe. Other than that, we're on the same page.

Have you heard of the Venona project? It's where during the cold war, they intercepted soviet cables and decoded them. In the cables, now a released project, the soviets named many of their spies, and nearly all of them were being examined by McCarthy. In other words... he was 100% right. There were people, being paid by Stalin, working as spies in the state department.

There is no question about it anymore. McCarthy was a lone hero.

 

[Dr.Who]

Not exactly true. Is it possible, that a person may hold views favorable to a corp's needs to begin with, and therefore is the reason they support them? Is it also possible, for a person to hold multiple views, and be supported based on a completely separate view?

Another fact to consider is that many companies give to both parties in substantial amounts. They are just trying to collect good will.

 

[GenSeneca]

From my Propaganda video project on another forum:

Are you a Conservative?

Here is the definition they used:
1. resistant to change
2. having social or political views favoring conservatism
3. avoiding excess; "a conservative estimate"
4. unimaginatively conventional; "a colorful character in the buttoned-down, dull-grey world of business"- Newsweek
5. conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle class; "a bourgeois mentality"

noun
1. a person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas [ant: liberal]
2. a member of a Conservative Party

I have underlined what the video chose to highlight, they made sure to leave off the rest and only show the underlined sentences. I'll come back to this in a minute...

At the start, you see what looks like an American Heritage Dictionary, with the word "Heritage" removed, but the definition they give is from Princeton's dictionary - WorldNet.

Here is the American Heritage definition:

1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
4.
1. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
2. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
5. Conservative Of or belonging to the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
6. Conservative Of or adhering to Conservative Judaism.
7. Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.

1. One favoring traditional views and values.
2. A supporter of political conservatism.
3. Conservative A member or supporter of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
4. Archaic A preservative agent or principle.

Notice the Lack of negative connotations in this definition? Just one thing I would like to point out for all you Conservatives out there... No matter what dictionary you look at, there is one critical piece of Conservative thought that has been left out of every Conservative definition but included with Liberal and Progressive definitions:

Liberal:
1. showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"
2. having political or social views favoring reform and progress
3. tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
4. given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather"
5. not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem"

noun
1. a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
2. a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets

Progressive:
1. favoring or promoting progress; "progressive schools"
2. favoring or promoting reform (often by government action)
3. (of taxes) adjusted so that the rate increases as the amount of income increases
4. gradually advancing in extent
5. (of a card game or a dance) involving a series of sections for which the participants successively change place or relative position; "progressive euchre"; "progressive tournaments"
6. advancing in severity; "progressive paralysis"

noun
1. a tense of verbs used in describing action that is on-going
2. a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties

Anyone see what I'm getting at? How many of you Conservatives out there favor the destruction of Civil Liberties? They may have well stuck that in under Conservative... its certainly the implication.

And look back at the #2 Liberal... Since when do Liberals favor free market solutions and self regulating markets? Maybe the working schleps like me, but not the Liberals in Washington.

Who noticed this description for Liberal: "tolerant of his opponent's opinions" Since when? Try telling a Liberal you don't believe in Global Warming, or that Bush lied, and see what happens.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say Liberals and Progressives are in charge of writing dictionary definitions....

Are you sure your NOT a Liberal?

First and foremost, this time they show the word Heritage in the dictionary name AND they actually use the Heritage definition, as its far more flowery:

1.
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
4. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
5. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
6. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
7. Archaic Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
8. Obsolete Morally unrestrained; licentious.
2.
1. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
2. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Archaic Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
4. Obsolete Morally unrestrained; licentious.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
5.
1. Archaic Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
2. Obsolete Morally unrestrained; licentious.

1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
2. Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.

No shock, they highlight virtue words to make it sound like Liberals are sugar, spice and everything nice. Please take note of what is "Obsolete" in the definition of Liberal: Morally unrestrained; licentious.

While not emphasised with "Obsolete", what is Conspicuously missing from the previous definition is something that matters a great deal:

2. A person who favors the protection of civil liberties
----------------------------------------------------------

 

[Jeugenen]

MEXICAN ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM, ECONOMICS, AND TYRANNY

It is very economically advantageous to use cheap Mexican seasonal agricultural guest workers; it is very socially and economically disadvantageous to let them stay after the crop is harvested.

When seasonal guest workers do return to Mexico at end of the growing season, they return with money and experience, to contribute to the development of Mexico; and each year, when a new group of seasonal guest workers comes, they are eager to work for the same low non-citizen wages.

And, when they return to Mexico at end of the growing season, they do not drive down the wages of American workers, by competing for jobs in landscaping, construction, sanitation, and housekeeping; and they do not use American governmental social services.

Mexico is land rich in natural resources; what makes it so socially and economically poor are its Mexican People; and wherever they immigrate they bring their deplorable civilization with them. It is so inferior than none of them want to return to it.

The Mexican dream of regaining political control over Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California is America’s worst nightmare. Starting at all of the border towns, and spreading northward throughout America, like cancers, are thousands of deplorable Mexican neighborhoods.

America is presently occupied by 12-15 million Mexicans. With the deportation of all the illegal immigrants, students will again be able to get good paying summer jobs, to learn responsibility and earn their way through college; blue-collar wages will rise; border towns will not be slums; Spanish will not be a second language; crime will go down; hospitals and prisons will not be overcrowded; and, voter fraud will be over.

When seasonal guest workers come from all of the countries of Latin America, on a strict quota system, then every country benefits, not Mexico exclusively; and when they are well treated, the experience is mutually positive.

When all of the illegal aliens are deported, the crooked Neo-Lib Democrats and Neo-Con Republicans will lose millions of political supporters, and the large donations that they receive from the Mexican Lobby; and, those American businesses that exploit cheap non-agricultural Mexican labor will lose their illegal competitive advantages.

No rich superior civilization in the World can coexist side by side with a poor inferior civilization, without a great wall or fence, strict guest labor laws, armed border guards, and fines for hiring illegal aliens.

Those tyrannical elected Republican and Democrat leaders who serve the crooked exploitive labor lobbies, such Samuel Johnson in Texas and Nancy Pelosi in California, notoriously supporting amnesty, hindering the enforcement of immigration laws and enactment of immigration reforms, in defiance of the majority will of the American People, shall be punished for their treason.

 

[PLC1]

I'm amused. What would you propose?

I have some ideas that would take up a lot of space to explain, and are worthless since they will never happen anyway.

No and yes. I have no problem with tax cuts. That's MY money to begin with. I'll never have an issue with money being given back to whom it rightfully belongs to... namely us, the public. I have a problem with overspending.

So yeah over spending, and only over spending, does disappoint me. But in reality, the same could be said for every single democrats or republican since WW2, yes? A good number of Republicans are liberals in favor of larger more expansive government, just like nearly all democrats. Jim Jeffers anyone?

Yes, most likely every single administration has increased the budget. Of course, it is the Congress that holds the purse strings, not the president, but it is the pres who asks for funding for this and that. Fiscal conservatives, the only kind that count imo, are on the endangered species list and widely thought to be extinct.

Well this tips on another issue about 'lying'. I support people getting out of poverty. I have personally helped people who were poor for that reason. However, I'm completely against Section 8, public housing, food stamps and welfare. As in I'm against forced support. Am I lying then if I say I support poor people? Some would say I am because I do not support theft of money through taxes, and doling it out in federal programs.

That said, clearly he wanted to lessen his critics of his anti-subsidies policy. At least he never changed his stance on Ethanol mandates or subsidies.

I have no doubt that he is against ethanol subsidies, however, the folks in Indiana aren't so sure:

McCain supports a transition into clean fuels. He supports a local alternative to foreign oil. And for Indiana, that means ethanol. The Hoosier economy, as well as the Midwest, can be the next big source for energy, as was Pennsylvania for coal and Saudi Arabia for Oil. The difference of course, is that our source of fuel is renewable.

Like every pol, he tells the audience du jour what he thinks it wants to hear. That's not to pick on McCain, nor even on politicians. They do what they have to do.

More importantly, we have shifted the blame, and attempted to pin it on one political party. The Big Oil party, or the Big Company party, or the Rich People party. It's just a way of denying responsibility, and ignoring the real cause is us.

Yes, the real cause is us. The "we" who have shifted the blame are the other party. The Democrats want to blame the Republicans, and vice versa.

Have you heard of the Venona project? It's where during the cold war, they intercepted soviet cables and decoded them. In the cables, now a released project, the soviets named many of their spies, and nearly all of them were being examined by McCarthy. In other words... he was 100% right. There were people, being paid by Stalin, working as spies in the state department.

There is no question about it anymore. McCarthy was a lone hero.

Do you refer to this Joseph McCarthy, or is there another one I'm not aware of?

Joseph Raymond McCarthy (November 14, 1908 – May 2, 1957) served as a Republican U.S. Senator from the state of Wisconsin from 1947 until his death in 1957. Beginning in 1950, McCarthy became the most visible public face of a period of intense anti-communist suspicion inspired by the tensions of the Cold War.[1] He was noted for making claims that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government and elsewhere. Ultimately, McCarthy's tactics and his inability to substantiate his claims led to his being discredited and censured by the United States Senate. The term "McCarthyism," coined in 1950 in reference to McCarthy's practices, was soon applied to similar anti-communist pursuits. Today the term is used more generally to describe demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as public attacks on the character or patriotism of political opponents.

 

[Andy]

Do you refer to this Joseph McCarthy, or is there another one I'm not aware of?

Yeah, that's him. The only thing not true in there is that he didn't substantiate his claims. And the Venona project ended up proving him right on every account. McCarthy was a hero. More than 30K people paid their respects to the Warrior against the Soviets, and even Robert Kennedy called him one of the greatest patriots, and went to his funeral. Without McCarthy, I would wager we would be under Soviet control by now.

 

[PLC1]

Yeah, that's him. The only thing not true in there is that he didn't substantiate his claims. And the Venona project ended up proving him right on every account. McCarthy was a hero. More than 30K people paid their respects to the Warrior against the Soviets, and even Robert Kennedy called him one of the greatest patriots, and went to his funeral. Without McCarthy, I would wager we would be under Soviet control by now.

Are you planning to edit Wikipedia and set the record straight?

 

[Andy]

Are you planning to edit Wikipedia and set the record straight?

Er... I quoted that from Wiki.

 

[PLC1]

Er... I quoted that from Wiki.

Whoa! And you read my own quote from Wiki. Could it be that the online encyclopedia has conflicting information?