Could Scott Brown be the next President, and Sarah Palin, the Vice President?

Trick question...  Scott Brown could possibly run for president after a few terms in the Senate, but if he chose Palin as his running mate, he would lose.

Brown yes, but there isn't any way he would put Palin on the ticket.  There isn't a mirror big enough for the both of them.

Brown yes, but there isn't any way he would put Palin on the ticket.  There isn't a mirror big enough for the both of them.


;D

Brown yes, but there isn't any way he would put Palin on the ticket.  There isn't a mirror big enough for the both of them.


Very witty, Wilde, very, very witty.  I wish I had thought of that!  Karma.
;D

I went with "Hell Yeah" because the question was could not should.

With the new SCOTUS decision deregulating corporate influence on campaigns (see Lyricboy's thread), all the business interests could get behind a send Brown to Town campaign.  The social conservatives wouldn't support him, but big business doesn't care about abortion or prayer in school or whatever.  It's all about greed for those guys and Scott Brown is an empty slate.  They could make him their puppet!
::)

I think Palin ruined her chances of winning any national office as soon as she resigned the governorship of Alaska.

Right after she resigned, I was sitting at a bar with a few of my redneck drinking buddies, and they were all kind of wringing their hands and saying stuff like, "I don't get it, why'd she resign?" and trying to think of ways to rationalize it when I suddenly smiled and blurted out, "Because she's a quitter! She's a f*cking QUITTER!" They all stopped and glared at me with the dirtiest of looks but said nothing, because they had no good comeback for that.

I have the feeling that if Palin tries to make another run at the White House, that the "quitter" label will be what ultimately sinks her.

I heavily doubt if Scott Brown is gonna run for president in 2012. Nobody even heard of Scott Brown I don;t think as late as Christmas time of 2009.

I heavily doubt if Scott Brown is gonna run for president in 2012. Nobody even heard of Scott Brown I don;t think as late as Christmas time of 2009.


Yeah, well, you heard of him now, pal!
8)

I heavily doubt if Scott Brown is gonna run for president in 2012. Nobody even heard of Scott Brown I don;t think as late as Christmas time of 2009.



Nobody had heard of Sarah Palin until McCain picked her. Oh wait, maybe that isn't a good example.



Cat

Glenn Beck is already stating he thinks a dead intern could be in Scott Brown's future... so no, I don't think the neocons back him

Nobody had heard of Sarah Palin until McCain picked her. Oh wait, maybe that isn't a good example.



Cat


OH SNAP!!!!!

;D

I think Palin ruined her chances of winning any national office as soon as she resigned the governorship of Alaska.

Right after she resigned, I was sitting at a bar with a few of my redneck drinking buddies, and they were all kind of wringing their hands and saying stuff like, "I don't get it, why'd she resign?" and trying to think of ways to rationalize it when I suddenly smiled and blurted out, "Because she's a quitter! She's a f*cking QUITTER!" They all stopped and glared at me with the dirtiest of looks but said nothing, because they had no good comeback for that.

I have the feeling that if Palin tries to make another run at the White House, that the "quitter" label will be what ultimately sinks her.



Your right Sara did ruin her future chances of a presidential run by quitting as Governor of Alaska. In my opinion for Sarah Palin to win credibility back she has to spend some time in the House of Representatives or the US Senate.

The Republicans usually put their stakes in a presidential candidate thats ran for President before(i.e. Nixon, G.H.W Bush, and Reagan.) The Democrats have a habit of putting a hot commodity(an upcoming star)as their candidate(Clinton, Obama, JFK, Carter.)

Your right Sara did ruin her future chances of a presidential run by quitting as Governor of Alaska. In my opinion for Sarah Palin to win credibility back she has to spend some time in the House of Representatives or the US Senate.



.....and that isn't gonna happen, at least not in Alaska.  They are done with her.

Your right Sara did ruin her future chances of a presidential run by quitting as Governor of Alaska.



She didn't quit. She said so herself. She isn't a quitter. She just stopped being governor because she didn't quit.



Cat

Has anybody heard of the Conservative movement?  A Republican might run for President, but unless he is a strongly conservative nominee, he doesn't stand a chance.  The country has been slowly going downhill toward Progressivesism (or Marxism or Communisim or any bad 'ism' you can name ) ever since the 60's...Republicans are included in that trend.  So the ideal candidate would be a  maybe Repiblican who is more Conservative than the current crop...that doesn't cast out a stray Dem. who is very conservative.  All would have to uphold the Constution,  As for now, what I see is the Constitution being uphed only if it is convenient.

Has anybody heard of the Conservative movement?  A Republican might run for President, but unless he is a strongly conservative nominee, he doesn't stand a chance.  The country has been slowly going downhill toward Progressivesism (or Marxism or Communisim or any bad 'ism' you can name ) ever since the 60's...Republicans are included in that trend.  So the ideal candidate would be a  maybe Repiblican who is more Conservative than the current crop...that doesn't cast out a stray Dem. who is very conservative.  All would have to uphold the Constution,  As for now, what I see is the Constitution being uphed only if it is convenient.


The United States is the most conservative country in the industrialized world, except Singapore. 

One very conservative thing for you to do is learn how to spell "constitution" and "communism."
:D

The United States is the most conservative country in the industrialized world, except Singapore. 

One very conservative thing for you to do is learn how to spell "constitution" and "communism."
:D


Unless you are Glenn Beck, then you use both words at the same time!

;D

The United States is the most conservative country in the industrialized world, except Singapore. 

One very conservative thing for you to do is learn how to spell "constitution" and "communism."
:D



And learn what they both mean.



Cat

None of these comments following mine is a true discussion  about what I said.  Does anyone on these threads ever get serious or do they just poo-poo the opposite view? :P

None of these comments following mine is a true discussion  about what I said.  Does anyone on these threads ever get serious or do they just poo-poo the opposite view? :P


What you said totally doesn't make any sense. If the country is leaning towards Progressive-ism as you say it is, then why would only a strongly conservative Republican stand a chance. If the country was leaning toward the left, than any strongly conservative WOULDN'T stand a chance. And who says that Progressive-ism, Marxism & Communism are bad "isms". My guess it is the people who don't really know what they are. They bought into all the propaganda by the right leaning machine that started way back in the early 1900s and continued throughout the 20th century. This included the Red Scare of the 1920s & McCarthyism in the 1950s (talk about a bad "ism").

Personally I WISH this country was leaning more toward Progressive-ism. But it is not even close.

My point is, if you want to people to take your arguments seriously, please educate yourself as to what terms mean if you plan on using them in your argument.



Cat

If the country is leaning towards Progressive-ism as you say it is, then why would only a strongly conservative Republican stand a chance.

Conservatives are not Progressives. then of course a strongly Conservative Republican would restore the balance, snce they want to go BACK  to the Constitution

And who says that Progressive-ism, Marxism & Communism are bad "isms".

take a look at the countries that embrace them.

My guess it is the people who don't really know what they are.

Unfortunately for you, most Americans do.

Conservatives are not Progressives. then of course a strongly Conservative Republican would restore the balance, snce they want to go BACK  to the Constitution



You are right that Conservatives are not Progressives but the rest of this statement does not make ANY sense whatsoever! I'm not even going to attempt to try to figure out what you mean.



take a look at the countries that embrace them.



That is because some of those countries DO NOT really embrace them. If you have studied political science you would understand.



Unfortunately for you, most Americans do.



Huh?  ???



Cat

You read it.  Read Glen Beck's book "Arguing With Idiots"

Back to the actual topic...from what I've read about him Scott Brown might actually have more in common with Barack Obama than with Sarah Palin.

None of these comments following mine is a true discussion  about what I said.  Does anyone on these threads ever get serious or do they just poo-poo the opposite view? :P


poo-poo the opposite view?

She's a poet and she didn't know it!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/multijump.gif

If I were to run for President in 2012, I might tap Sarah as my running mate.  :-X

Has anybody heard of the Conservative movement?  A Republican might run for President, but unless he is a strongly conservative nominee, he doesn't stand a chance.  The country has been slowly going downhill toward Progressiveism (or Marxism or Communism or any bad 'ism' you can name ) ever since the 60's...Republicans are included in that trend.  So the ideal candidate would be a  maybe Republican who is more Conservative than the current crop...that doesn't cast out a stray Dem. who is very conservative.  All would have to uphold the Constitution,  As for now, what I see is the Constitution being upheld only if it is convenient.


I'm glad I wasn't the only one who wondered what this was all about.  Sorry Adagio, but you aren't making yourself very clear.  You say the country is going downhill toward "any bad ism you can name" means that you don't know which ism you feel it is sliding into, which means you don't understand enough about any of them to be able to differentiate, and there are significant differences.

If I were to run for President in 2012, I might tap Sarah as my running mate.   :-X


Tap that...or hit that(as in knocking boots kinda thang)    ;D

Has anybody heard of the Conservative movement?  A Republican might run for President, but unless he is a strongly conservative nominee, he doesn't stand a chance.  The country has been slowly going downhill toward Progressivesism (or Marxism or Communisim or any bad 'ism' you can name ) ever since the 60's...Republicans are included in that trend.  So the ideal candidate would be a  maybe Repiblican who is more Conservative than the current crop...that doesn't cast out a stray Dem. who is very conservative.  All would have to uphold the Constution,  As for now, what I see is the Constitution being uphed only if it is convenient.


Did you know that it was Theodore Roosevelt who started the Progressive Movement?  Do you have any idea what Karl Marx had to say (see my thread in the TTT, ask, and ye shall be enlightened).  And what conservative policies would this ideal candidate of yours espouse that would be more conservative than, say what Rudie Geuliani (sp) advocates, or Mitt Romny, or Sara Palin (does she advocate any positions?)? 

I agree that under the previous (compassionate conservative) administration the constitution was considered something of an inconvenience, but you must admit that Obama has made efforts to remedy that.

But all things considered, your post is rather poorly thought out and demonstrates a good deal of ignorance as to politics, political science, and political ideologies. I don't say this to be cruel or condescending but rather to encourage you to educate yourself as to both what is going on currently and the meaning and principles of the groups you mention.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who wondered what this was all about.  Sorry Adagio, but you aren't making yourself very clear.  You say the country is going downhill toward "any bad ism you can name" means that you don't know which ism you feel it is sliding into, which means you don't understand enough about any of them to be able to differentiate, and there are significant differences.


I don't see evidence bearing out her premise that we have become more "progressive" since the 1960s.  John Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and John Lennon were all assassinated.  I'm not speaking to any cohesive conspiracy against those men, but that politicians, political organizers, and countercultural icons inspire Americans to murder.  Moderates such as Jimmy Carter, Jerry Brown, and Dennis Kucinich are subjects of ridicule and considered "radicals" by self-identified conservatives.  Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were co-opted to favor corporatism above all else.  Our Supreme Court chief justice, John Roberts, is the most radically right-wing chief justice since Roger Taney, whose court ruled on Dredd Scott in 1857.

American culture worships military might, corporate power, celebrity, and rich people.  We are broke as a nation but still act like we enjoy the prestige of the superpower we were in the 1960s.  If you go to church seeking spiritual guidance, the emphasis is on material gain as a means to spiritual fulfillment.  

Basically, the United States is a fascist state that keeps popular resistance at bay by selling consumer choices as a substitute for true personal freedom.  Corporate America has gotten a bigger share of society's privileges than it ever dreamed of in the 1960s.  

I'm afraid the reason why Adagio is saying we are sliding into "progressivism" is the wealth corporations have stolen from the people of this country is not enough.  They are ravenous.  There is no such thing as enough.  Thus, they need to send pop culture right-wingers to spread the mendacious message that "progressives" are the big threat to America.  Glenn Beck has been on a tear about this for the past few months.

You read it.  Read Glen Beck's book "Arguing With Idiots"



Glenn Beck IS an idiot. You will NOT educate yourself if you listen to him, Rush, or Sean. There are many people out there (Conservatives as well as Liberals) who are NOT idiots that you are better off paying attention to-then these people.



Cat

You read it.  Read Glen Beck's book "Arguing With Idiots"


Get thee to an exorcist!
:D

If I'm not mistaken, Beck also supposedly wrote a book called "Common Sense" in which he claimed to be forwarding Patrick Henry's ideas, which, of course he had no knnowledge of, and was ripped over the coals for.

Has anybody heard of the Conservative movement? 


"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
  - Barry Goldwater

OK, so I'll give the current "conservative movement" that.  And I'll give 'em props for it. 

A Republican might run for President, but unless he is a strongly conservative nominee, he doesn't stand a chance.  The country has been slowly going downhill toward Progressivesism (or Marxism or Communisim or any bad 'ism' you can name ) ever since the 60's...Republicans are included in that trend.

"You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight."
- Some progressive named Barry Goldwater, talking about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", decades before Clinton came out with DADT as a compromise.

OK, so this Barry guy's also a liberal like that "Barry" Obama.  If he was evern a Republican, he was a total RINO.  But this isn't about Obama's SOTU speech.  Except where it is.

If you're an American conservative, I'd argue that the First Amendment - that Congress shall make no law to establish any particular religion as being preferred by the State - is a pretty decent value worth conserving.  Me?  I'm not big on that whole "living document, it means whatever we want it to mean when we pass a law saying we changed our minds" thing. 

There's nothing necessarily conservative or progressive about enshrining religious values into law.  If you're a Quaker, it's progressive to be a conscientious objector to a war like Vietnam.  If you're a Muslim fundamentalist, it's conservative to ensure that your religion is enshrined in the constitution of post-Saddam Iraq.  It's a conservative position to let people take responsibility for their own values.  It's a religious position to say that some types of sex are icky.  They're not the same thing.

And while I'm at it...

"Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism."
- Yep, I'm quoting that pinko Barry Goldwater again.  Emanciwhatever of differences?  Sounds like those diversity freaks in HR!

OK, I'm being too hard on you with the Goldwater :)  But post-9/11-era conservatism has had a pretty despotic tinge to it, wouldn't you agree?  Can you imagine Reagan, the guy who said "tear down this wall", and who called the Soviets an "evil empire" when Jimmah Cahtuh was bending over backwards to embrace detente... can you imagine him - after having railed against the evils of the KGB and the fact that in the 1980s, the USSR had the most prisoners per capita of any nation on earth - can you imagine him seriously endorsing Bush-II-era policies like mass surveillance of the civilian population and torture?

(Ironic historical footnote - thanks in large part to Reagan's War on Some Drugs, the US now has the distinction of having more prisoners per capita than The USSRRussia, or even China.  But that's another thread.)

Anyways, your point is well-taken in that we lay the smack down on any politician who makes a hypocritical ass of themselves.  But to lay your serious point to rest, there are liberals and conservatives here.  We enjoy poo-pooing on people who believe silly things, but that doesn't mean we don't take real political debate lightly.

Flat-earthers will be mocked, but people who are genuinely interested in why we believe the earth is round (ships become invisible from the waterline first, and the mast last, when they sail over the horizon, the Greeks measured the diameter of the earth thousands of years ago by taking simultaneous measurements of solar angles from the bottom of wells, which you could replicate with a cellphone and a few grand, or for another $20K or so, you can buy a vacation that includes a ride in a fighter jet that flies high that you can see for yourself!) get taken seriously.

I'm a libertarian (small ("L")) conservative.  I don't care what you do with your body, as long as you don't do it to my body.  I don't care what God you worship, as long as you don't try to change the one (or none :) that I worship.  I also call myself on my own hypocrisy - like when I made $mumble by buying defense contractors and surveillance gear manufacturers during the start of the Gulf war, and I'm not too proud to laugh at myself when I screw up - like when I lost all of those war profits by believing that the government would inflate its debt away in 2008, devaluing the US Dollar.  (The USD skyrocketed during the Crash of 2008, and the more bailouts we handed out, the higher it went, and the lower stocks went.  LOL, I fail :)  Sucks to be me!)

Cite Glenn Beck, and we'll laugh. Cite why you agree with him, and on which points, and we'll be able to come back with something more articulate. 

(Carlos and Max, you're the perfect counterexample on the other side.  As a capitalist, most of the people who rail against corporatism have done so just as mindlessly as those who cite Beck or Limbaugh as exemplars of conservatism.  You guys are actually able to articulate what's wrong with corporatism, and in so articulating it, I'm able to realize there's common ground between us.  My problem as a capitalist is that I'm unable to convince any capitalists who matter that capitalism and corporatism aren't the same thing.  Probably because - as my little war profiteering adventure up there illustrates in miniature - any capitalists with sufficient capital are willing to swallow their pride for a few years in exchange for a doubling of their net worth, as long as they can hit the eject button before the crash :)

This is actually one of the most civilized political spaces I've ever encountered.  We laugh, we mock, but in the end, people on either side really do want to understand the other side's point of view.  (Otherwise we'dl just hang out in the pop-culture parts of the board, which are what brought us here in the first place :)  State your premises, and if your conclusions follow from those premises, that's all anyone here really asks for.  You can do no better; we expect no less.  We can, might, and often do disagree on premises, but as long as the argument itself is valid, you'll continue to do fine here. 

Thanks Foo Bar.

I also make the distinction between "free enterprise" and "capitalism" and "capitalism" and "too big to fail."

Who gets to be a capitalist?  Nobody who has to work for a living, that's who.  

That is, you can have investments and still not be a "capitalist" because you can't live off the dividends.  If you must sell your labor, you're not truly a capitalist.  This is debatable, of course.

Be a socialist.  They'll let you in if you listen to them bitch and moan about the capitalists!
:D

I can't find the exact quote, but before he died Barry Goldwater told Newt Gingrich not to associate the Goldwater name with anything he was doing. 

The libertarian values individual above collective rights.  The capitalist class does not.  The real capitalist class values their collective rights above the other 99% of population.  They don't want food stamps for poor people because the poor need to learn how to stand on their own two feet, BUT they do want Uncle Sam to bail them out if they lose their money on bad bets.  They want the burglar who holds up the 7-11 to go to jail, but it's perfectly fine and dandy for them to hold up the U.S. treasury!
8)

"Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell in the ass"

- Barry Goldwater

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
  - Barry Goldwater

OK, so I'll give the current "conservative movement" that.  And I'll give 'em props for it. 

"You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight."
- Some progressive named Barry Goldwater, talking about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", decades before Clinton came out with DADT as a compromise.

OK, so this Barry guy's also a liberal like that "Barry" Obama.  If he was evern a Republican, he was a total RINO.  But this isn't about Obama's SOTU speech.  Except where it is.

If you're an American conservative, I'd argue that the First Amendment - that Congress shall make no law to establish any particular religion as being preferred by the State - is a pretty decent value worth conserving.  Me?  I'm not big on that whole "living document, it means whatever we want it to mean when we pass a law saying we changed our minds" thing. 

There's nothing necessarily conservative or progressive about enshrining religious values into law.  If you're a Quaker, it's progressive to be a conscientious objector to a war like Vietnam.  If you're a Muslim fundamentalist, it's conservative to ensure that your religion is enshrined in the constitution of post-Saddam Iraq.  It's a conservative position to let people take responsibility for their own values.  It's a religious position to say that some types of sex are icky.  They're not the same thing.

And while I'm at it...

"Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism."
- Yep, I'm quoting that pinko Barry Goldwater again.  Emanciwhatever of differences?  Sounds like those diversity freaks in HR!

OK, I'm being too hard on you with the Goldwater :)  But post-9/11-era conservatism has had a pretty despotic tinge to it, wouldn't you agree?  Can you imagine Reagan, the guy who said "tear down this wall", and who called the Soviets an "evil empire" when Jimmah Cahtuh was bending over backwards to embrace detente... can you imagine him - after having railed against the evils of the KGB and the fact that in the 1980s, the USSR had the most prisoners per capita of any nation on earth - can you imagine him seriously endorsing Bush-II-era policies like mass surveillance of the civilian population and torture?

(Ironic historical footnote - thanks in large part to Reagan's War on Some Drugs, the US now has the distinction of having more prisoners per capita than The USSRRussia, or even China.  But that's another thread.)

Anyways, your point is well-taken in that we lay the smack down on any politician who makes a hypocritical ass of themselves.  But to lay your serious point to rest, there are liberals and conservatives here.  We enjoy poo-pooing on people who believe silly things, but that doesn't mean we don't take real political debate lightly.

Flat-earthers will be mocked, but people who are genuinely interested in why we believe the earth is round (ships become invisible from the waterline first, and the mast last, when they sail over the horizon, the Greeks measured the diameter of the earth thousands of years ago by taking simultaneous measurements of solar angles from the bottom of wells, which you could replicate with a cellphone and a few grand, or for another $20K or so, you can buy a vacation that includes a ride in a fighter jet that flies high that you can see for yourself!) get taken seriously.

I'm a libertarian (small ("L")) conservative.  I don't care what you do with your body, as long as you don't do it to my body.  I don't care what God you worship, as long as you don't try to change the one (or none :) that I worship.  I also call myself on my own hypocrisy - like when I made $mumble by buying defense contractors and surveillance gear manufacturers during the start of the Gulf war, and I'm not too proud to laugh at myself when I screw up - like when I lost all of those war profits by believing that the government would inflate its debt away in 2008, devaluing the US Dollar.  (The USD skyrocketed during the Crash of 2008, and the more bailouts we handed out, the higher it went, and the lower stocks went.  LOL, I fail :)  Sucks to be me!)

Cite Glenn Beck, and we'll laugh. Cite why you agree with him, and on which points, and we'll be able to come back with something more articulate. 

(Carlos and Max, you're the perfect counterexample on the other side.  As a capitalist, most of the people who rail against corporatism have done so just as mindlessly as those who cite Beck or Limbaugh as exemplars of conservatism.  You guys are actually able to articulate what's wrong with corporatism, and in so articulating it, I'm able to realize there's common ground between us.  My problem as a capitalist is that I'm unable to convince any capitalists who matter that capitalism and corporatism aren't the same thing.  Probably because - as my little war profiteering adventure up there illustrates in miniature - any capitalists with sufficient capital are willing to swallow their pride for a few years in exchange for a doubling of their net worth, as long as they can hit the eject button before the crash :)

This is actually one of the most civilized political spaces I've ever encountered.  We laugh, we mock, but in the end, people on either side really do want to understand the other side's point of view.  (Otherwise we'dl just hang out in the pop-culture parts of the board, which are what brought us here in the first place :)  State your premises, and if your conclusions follow from those premises, that's all anyone here really asks for.  You can do no better; we expect no less.  We can, might, and often do disagree on premises, but as long as the argument itself is valid, you'll continue to do fine here. 




Karma.



Cat

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
  - Barry Goldwater


(Carlos and Max, you're the perfect counterexample on the other side. You guys are actually able to articulate what's wrong with corporatism, and in so articulating it, I'm able to realize there's common ground between us. 



I think, when you cut to the chase with any normal, intelligent (non-politician) person, while there will be disagreements over means, there is usually agreement over the most basic ends. 

But Adagio seems to have "shot her wad" and retreated to the netherworld of the pop.  Too bad

Has anybody heard of the Conservative movement?  A Republican might run for President, but unless he is a strongly conservative nominee, he doesn't stand a chance.  The country has been slowly going downhill toward Progressivesism (or Marxism or Communisim or any bad 'ism' you can name ) ever since the 60's...Republicans are included in that trend.  So the ideal candidate would be a  maybe Repiblican who is more Conservative than the current crop...that doesn't cast out a stray Dem. who is very conservative.  All would have to uphold the Constution,  As for now, what I see is the Constitution being uphed only if it is convenient.


Yes, I've heard of the Conservative movement it's quite disturbing really.  What is wrong with progress?  If you don't want progress kindly go to a country like Iran where progressive ideals are stomped down by a regime that knows nothing but how to put fear into the hearts of people.  As for the Constitution.  Would that be what fits your definition of how the constitution should be interpreted or the founding Fathers?  The Founding Fathers were quite progressive for their day.  Most were Deist or Unitarians and they were very hip to new ideals.  Case in point Thomas Jefferson owned a copy of the Koran.  Now if that isn't a progressive notion I don't know what is.

None of these comments following mine is a true discussion  about what I said.  Does anyone on these threads ever get serious or do they just poo-poo the opposite view? :P


I've engaged in debate with you before about your views and you don't consider it a serious discussion unless people agree with you.

Conservatives are not Progressives. then of course a strongly Conservative Republican would restore the balance, snce they want to go BACK  to the Constitution

take a look at the countries that embrace them.

Unfortunately for you, most Americans do.


Conservatives fear any sort of progress.  Balance, no Conservative Republicans don't know the meaning of it that is why they are Conservatives.  Conserve not balance.  Btw your constant quest for the Constitution is about as lame as a tea party with Revolutionary War get-ups.

Take a look a Canada that progressive place that it is.  Very nice indeed. :)

You read it.  Read Glen Beck's book "Arguing With Idiots"


You can keep it, I prefer Common Sense by Thomas Paine.  Glenn Beck is too immature and uncultured for me to waste my time reading.

I think being a Progressive Conservative is slight better than being a Traditional Conservative, buy you can keep both in my opinion. The Traditional Conservative is apparently still stuck in the 1700's, where is the Progressive Conservative wants change and may not listen to reason, but hopefully can compromise.

Apparently, "Sister Sarah" (as Keith calls her) has to use a cheat sheet when asked a few "unrehearsed" questions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtcVMTZkTZQ


This is from the same woman who a few minutes earlier made a comment about Obama using a teleprompter as she was reading her speech from her notes. WTF??!!!!    ??? ??? ???



Cat

Yes, I've heard of the Conservative movement it's quite disturbing really.  What is wrong with progress?  If you don't want progress kindly go to a country like Iran where progressive ideals are stomped down by a regime that knows nothing but how to put fear into the hearts of people.


Who cares what the proposal is, as long as it's "progressive", right?  I mean, who could possibly be against progress?

In other words, that's something I gotta call BS on.  Straight outta Orwell: the beauty of redefining the language is that the victims don't even know they're doing it. 

Conservatives, incidentally, are just as guilty of it as progressives.  The thing which is being "conserved", much like the thing to which "progressives" are progressing, is never explicitly defined.  Most conservatives typically imagine it as a 50s-era Leave It To Beaver utopia in which nothing bad ever happened, because nothing bad ever happened on TV, but by Glub, we were better than those Russians!  Social conservatives typically imagine it as a 4000-year-old utopia in which the God of the Israelites smote their enemies as long as they made their God happy, and in which that same God smote the Israelites whenever they deviated from the faith, and if it takes a theocracy more oppressive than Pharaonic Egypt to do it, that's the price of conserving traditional values.  Most progressives imagine a utopia in which the 60s ideals of peace, love, and unity are realized; fanatical progressives imagine a utopia in which if people can't figure out how to do it themselves, then by Glub, if it takes guns and a theocracy more oppressive than Kim Jong-Il's North Korea to make the New Socialist Man, well, as Stalin said, you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet.

But thanks for illustrating the problem far better than I could have.

Orwell's 1946 essay Politics and the English Language should be required reading.  (When I rise to the position of Global Emperor, and am seated upon a throne made of the skulls of my enemies, I'll make that happen, because I demand a freethinking and educated populace! :) 

Who cares what the proposal is, as long as it's "progressive", right?  I mean, who could possibly be against progress?

In other words, that's something I gotta call BS on.  Straight outta Orwell: the beauty of redefining the language is that the victims don't even know they're doing it. 

Conservatives, incidentally, are just as guilty of it as progressives.  The thing which is being "conserved", much like the thing to which "progressives" are progressing, is never explicitly defined.  Most conservatives typically imagine it as a 50s-era Leave It To Beaver utopia in which nothing bad ever happened, because nothing bad ever happened on TV, but by Glub, we were better than those Russians!  Social conservatives typically imagine it as a 4000-year-old utopia in which the God of the Israelites smote their enemies as long as they made their God happy, and in which that same God smote the Israelites whenever they deviated from the faith, and if it takes a theocracy more oppressive than Pharaonic Egypt to do it, that's the price of conserving traditional values.  Most progressives imagine a utopia in which the 60s ideals of peace, love, and unity are realized; fanatical progressives imagine a utopia in which if people can't figure out how to do it themselves, then by Glub, if it takes guns and a theocracy more oppressive than Kim Jong-Il's North Korea to make the New Socialist Man, well, as Stalin said, you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet.

But thanks for illustrating the problem far better than I could have.

Orwell's 1946 essay Politics and the English Language should be required reading.  (When I rise to the position of Global Emperor, and am seated upon a throne made of the skulls of my enemies, I'll make that happen, because I demand a freethinking and educated populace! :) 


When one considers the fringes of U.S politics, your description is quite accurate, but only in describing the extreme fringes.  If you look at the history of "progressivism" and "conservatism" over the course of our history, progressives have favored the expansion of the suffrage and conservatives have opposed it, progressives have favored greater protections of working people, conservatives have opposed them, progressives have favored greater racial equality, conservatives have opposed it, so on many levels, what progressives and conservatives support has been quite clear and quite specific.  And on all of them, I have to come down on the progressive side.  As to current issues...I think the sides are clear.

When one considers the fringes of U.S politics, your description is quite accurate, but only in describing the extreme fringes.  If you look at the history of "progressivism" and "conservatism" over the course of our history, progressives have favored the expansion of the suffrage and conservatives have opposed it, progressives have favored greater protections of working people, conservatives have opposed them, progressives have favored greater racial equality, conservatives have opposed it, so on many levels, what progressives and conservatives support has been quite clear and quite specific.  And on all of them, I have to come down on the progressive side.  As to current issues...I think the sides are clear.


Former Congressman Tom Tancredo was just advocating literacy tests for suffrage the other day at the Teabagger convention.  We know what that's about!
::)

Former Congressman Tom Tancredo was just advocating literacy tests for suffrage the other day at the Teabagger convention.  We know what that's about!
::)
Next he'll advocate bringing back Plessy.

Next he'll advocate bringing back Plessy.


Plessy?  Screw that!  Let's just repeal the 13th Amendment and be done with it!
::)

When one considers the fringes of U.S politics, your description is quite accurate, but only in describing the extreme fringes.  If you look at the history of "progressivism" and "conservatism" over the course of our history, progressives have favored the expansion of the suffrage and conservatives have opposed it, progressives have favored greater protections of working people, conservatives have opposed them, progressives have favored greater racial equality, conservatives have opposed it, so on many levels, what progressives and conservatives support has been quite clear and quite specific.  And on all of them, I have to come down on the progressive side.  As to current issues...I think the sides are clear.


The problem with most post-9/11 conservatives (and most post-Woodstock progressives) is that they're unclear on why they fight for things they do.  Useful idiots abound on both sides of the aisle.

The conservatives who fought against racial equality were on the wrong side of history.  They were conserving something that wasn't worth conserving.  (And for the record, I'd lump the homophobes and other social conservatives in with that bunch.)  There was - and is - no rational or liberty-maximizing reason for those stances.  These were truly people standing athwart history, yelling "stop!"

The question is - why'd the progressives fight for it?  Because it maximized liberty?  Or because it was merely a path to more power?  Depends on which progressive you ask, and how far they were willing to go down the aisle.  Andrea Dworkin and Louis Farrakhan, for instance, had no interest whatsoever in maximizing liberty; they were extremists interested primarily in revenge - revenge even over power. 

To get us back on topic, that Brown guy?  I don't know enough about him.  But Palin?  No, we (economic-, as I can't speak for socio-)conservatives tried hiring a figurehead in the form of Bush II under the assumption that he'd merely do his father's (and by extension, his corporate masters') bidding.  It was a military disaster, and the military disaster turned into a Soviet-style economic disaster.  Palin?  No thanks.  The best-case scenario is that people behind Bush II are the same people behind Palin, and we all saw how that turned out.  If enough of the political class has deserted the Elephant Party that Palin would be given actual power, well, if you mash up with The Day After and The Handmaid's Tale, you're still probably being optimistic.

To get us back on the meta-topic, I kinda wish Adagio would show back up.  A sociocon who could articulate their view would be interesting.  We don't have to agree to understand each other. 

(I really can't speak for social conservatives, because I don't fully grok what they're trying to conserve.  Economically, I'm after a meritocracy, as opposed to a culture of learned helplesness prevents lower-class schlubs from working their way into the middle-class, and opposed to an economy in which taxes prevent middle-class schlubs from working their way into the upper class.  (...where I define "upper class" as "can live comfortably for the rest of their lives on their investments as long as the current system persists", not in terms of having actual political power.  To be pedantic, "lower-upper-class", as the real upper class is defined not only by wealth, but by power.  Lotta us middle-class schlubs would be happy to just have a Star Trek replicator to generate new toys and an infinite supply of beer, power be damned...) )

 

To get us back on topic, that Brown guy?  I don't know enough about him.  But Palin?  No, we (economic-, as I can't speak for socio-)conservatives tried hiring a figurehead in the form of Bush II under the assumption that he'd merely do his father's (and by extension, his corporate masters') bidding.  It was a military disaster, and the military disaster turned into a Soviet-style economic disaster.  Palin?  No thanks.  The best-case scenario is that people behind Bush II are the same people behind Palin, and we all saw how that turned out.  If enough of the political class has deserted the Elephant Party that Palin would be given actual power, well, if you mash up with The Day After and The Handmaid's Tale, you're still probably being optimistic.




The bushII people will be filtering out now, they will be attached to Brown, are now.  He is now the Republican Golden Boy.  He likes to say the word independent, but anyone who knows of him, and his record, knows that he is solidly in the repub camp, having voted with the 96% of the time.  He is good looking, has a pretty wife, and two pretty daughters.  He overcame what seems to be a pretty disfunctional family, and he tows the party line like a swimmer towing a rowboat with the rope between his teeth. 

The problem with most post-9/11 conservatives (and most post-Woodstock progressives) is that they're unclear on why they fight for things they do.  Useful idiots abound on both sides of the aisle.

The conservatives who fought against racial equality were on the wrong side of history.  They were conserving something that wasn't worth conserving.  (And for the record, I'd lump the homophobes and other social conservatives in with that bunch.)  There was - and is - no rational or liberty-maximizing reason for those stances.  These were truly people standing athwart history, yelling "stop!"

The question is - why'd the progressives fight for it?  Because it maximized liberty?  Or because it was merely a path to more power?  Depends on which progressive you ask, and how far they were willing to go down the aisle.  Andrea Dworkin and Louis Farrakhan, for instance, had no interest whatsoever in maximizing liberty; they were extremists interested primarily in revenge - revenge even over power. 

To get us back on topic, that Brown guy?  I don't know enough about him.  But Palin?  No, we (economic-, as I can't speak for socio-)conservatives tried hiring a figurehead in the form of Bush II under the assumption that he'd merely do his father's (and by extension, his corporate masters') bidding.  It was a military disaster, and the military disaster turned into a Soviet-style economic disaster.  Palin?  No thanks.  The best-case scenario is that people behind Bush II are the same people behind Palin, and we all saw how that turned out.  If enough of the political class has deserted the Elephant Party that Palin would be given actual power, well, if you mash up with The Day After and The Handmaid's Tale, you're still probably being optimistic.

To get us back on the meta-topic, I kinda wish Adagio would show back up.  A sociocon who could articulate their view would be interesting.  We don't have to agree to understand each other. 

(I really can't speak for social conservatives, because I don't fully grok what they're trying to conserve.  Economically, I'm after a meritocracy, as opposed to a culture of learned helplesness prevents lower-class schlubs from working their way into the middle-class, and opposed to an economy in which taxes prevent middle-class schlubs from working their way into the upper class.  (...where I define "upper class" as "can live comfortably for the rest of their lives on their investments as long as the current system persists", not in terms of having actual political power.  To be pedantic, "lower-upper-class", as the real upper class is defined not only by wealth, but by power.  Lotta us middle-class schlubs would be happy to just have a Star Trek replicator to generate new toys and an infinite supply of beer, power be damned...) )


It's about POWER, dude!  That's what I've determined.  At the end of the day, it's all about raw, naked power.  The American right-wing was willing to admit that and so they were able to do the necessary evils to get and keep it.  The liberals (or progressives) genuinely believed there was a greater long-term good to be served.  Howard Zinn was a wonderful man, but if he called Uncle Sam and ordered a cashier's check for $300 billion no questions asked, they would have locked him up and thrown away the key.  Certain figures on the political left are figures the liberals would rather forget -- Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Hoffa, etc.  These were nasty guys, but they understood power, and they could get the job done, thus the did more to help the oppressed and vulnerable than Clinton or Obama could ever do.
::)

You read it.  Read Glen Beck's book "Arguing With Idiots"
Wait, you're inferring that those that oppose you on the board are uneducated and simply "poo-pooing" the opposing view(which, if you know Cat & Carlos, you should know that they BOTH hold multiple degrees in forms of political science if memory serves) and you're basing your argument on a single book called "Arguing with Idiots"?  If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is???

Wait, you're inferring that those that oppose you on the board are uneducated and simply "poo-pooing" the opposing view(which, if you know Cat & Carlos, you should know that they BOTH hold multiple degrees in forms of political science if memory serves) and you're basing your argument on a single book called "Arguing with Idiots"?  If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is???


Beck's book should be Arguing for Idiots!
:D

Wait, you're inferring that those that oppose you on the board are uneducated and simply "poo-pooing" the opposing view(which, if you know Cat & Carlos, you should know that they BOTH hold multiple degrees in forms of political science if memory serves) and you're basing your argument on a single book called "Arguing with Idiots"?  If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is???



Thanks for the vote of confidence but Carlos is the multiple degree holder. He has his PhD in Latin American History & a ABD (All But Dissertation) in Sociology. I only have a B.A. in History but I do have some grad work under my belt but never did finish up my M.A. (which maybe someday I will-or not :-\\ ).



Cat

I see that Scott Brown in a 2012 poll for the Republican Nomination for President is in the top 10 currently in a Gallup survey.

I see that Scott Brown in a 2012 poll for the Republican Nomination for President is in the top 10 currently in a Gallup survey.


He is writing his autobio, and if he toes the party line he will be the next president.

He is writing his autobio, and if he toes the party line he will be the next president.
I;m surprised Brown has gotten this big this fast. I didn;t see this coming with him being in the Top 10 in a Gallup Survey for the 2012 Republican Nomination for President.