A Question For Conservative Members

[Jagger69]

I saw a feature on TV last night where the commentator was lamenting the fact that the republican congress was doing everything it could to perpetuate the current economic mess in order to ensure the defeat of President Obama next November. How do the conservative members here feel about that? Would you prefer to have mass unemployment, businesses going bankrupt, housing sales at an all-time low and foreclosures at an all time high, retirement accounts going down the drain, and people demonstrating in droves all over the nation instead of a speedy and strong economic recovery simply for the singular purpose of making sure that Obama was defeated in 2012? Do you believe that congress is employing obstructionist tactics for this very end? Of course, all members are welcome to comment but I'd really like to hear how our more conservative members feel about this. This is a legitimate question so let's keep it civil, please.

 

[Mayhem]

This is a common tactic from both sides of the aisle. This is why all politicians are punks.

 

[Jack Davenport]

I hear this a lot lately. I am not sure that is the case. I believe that the differences between the President and conservative members of congress are so great that they will never see eye to eye on much of anything. I think we need more evidence of a concerted effort by the GOP to push us over the cliff. Not saying that it might not be happening, but I truly believe that it is more of just let things play out in their minds. Of course they don't want a dramatic upturn in the economy because that would change Obama's current standing in the polls and increase his rather bleak chances of being re-elected. If the cons were smart, they would articulate their ideas regularly to the American people and try to implement them, The president is in a position that he has to listen a little to them.

They could take credit for the changes and policy (and improvement if that occurs) and would increase their chances for retaking the Senate.

Honestly, I am sick of both major parties and I am leaning more and more Libertarian each day.

 

[LaLiLuLeLohan]

Well I'm a Libertarian...something many Liberals consider even Right of the NeoConservatives/GOP in many cases. And while I have many problems with Democracies and Republic governments, I understand that it's what we have and we need to make it work to our advantage.

That being said, I do understand both sides. If one truly believes in Conservative principals and believes that a temporary fix from Obama/The Democrats will work for at least until the elections and that fix will ensure a reelection of Obama as well as a potential shift towards Democrats controlling Congress, I can't condemn the GOP for working against it. In a Republic, reps aren't necessarily voted in to surrender principle in order to aid the economy. They're voted in to represent the majority of their district. So if we're going to stand by the idea of a Republic, we have to acknowledged that.

 

[Rey C.]

Point of order, Mr. OP... point of order.

Are we talking about fiscal conservatives, social conservatives or just people who have picked up on the political fad of referring to oneself as a "conservative"? If someone is pro-choice, but sees certain benefits in supply side economics, is that person a "conservative"? And if a person is pro-life, but supports nation building exercises that cost the taxpayers trillions of borrowed dollars, is that person a "conservative"? :dunno:

Well I'm a Libertarian...something many Liberals consider even Right of the NeoConservatives/GOP in many cases. And while I have many problems with Democracies and Republic governments, I understand that it's what we have and we need to make it work to our advantage.

That being said, I do understand both sides. If one truly believes in Conservative principals and believes that a temporary fix from Obama/The Democrats will work for at least until the elections and that fix will ensure a reelection of Obama as well as a potential shift towards Democrats controlling Congress, I can't condemn the GOP for working against it. In a Republic, reps aren't necessarily voted in to surrender principle in order to aid the economy. They're voted in to represent the majority of their district. So if we're going to stand by the idea of a Republic, we have to acknowledged that.

Your reply sort of goes to my question above. Yes, to some, as a (fiscal) libertarian, you might be considered to the right of some in the GOP. But the neocons base their philosophy on foreign policy issues. Fiscally, they're actually pretty darn liberal... it's just that they like to give my money away to foreign nations instead of domestic programs, unless it involves a tax loophole passing itself off as "supply side economics". If you give a neocon a credit card (made in China), he/she will max that baby out just as quick as the most left wing liberal. But if you're also a social libertarian, Michele Bachmann would have her hubby, Sweet Marcus, trying to "pray away your gay", if you stated that what a person does with his or her body is their own business and no one else's. Being OK with porn, pot smoking and abortion will not win you any friends in a gathering of (fiscally) "libertarian" Evangelicals.

I know I am sometimes, but I don't (usually) mean to be annoying. It's just that these terms are often used, but I'm not always sure what is meant.


And to the actual OP, yes, I don't think there is ANY doubt that there are some on the right who would have no problem doing harm to the republic, as long as it increased their chances of getting Obama out of office. Rush Limbaugh said it early on: "he must fail!" And wasn't it a congressman from Texas (Jeff Sessions?) who said the GOP had to employ Taliban-like tactics in dealing with this President? Dissension is fine. But these people are elected to represent the best interests of the American people. If their primary goal is to get their party back into office and the other guy's out, and they are willing to see harm done to the nation and its people in the process, then I see them as enemies of the state and the people... to be treated accordingly (take that to mean whatever you choose ). This is EXACTLY what George Washington warned us about on the day that he left office. Either he was a prophet... or he just understood the weaknesses of human nature.

 

[luvsemlarge]

I think it all sucks ass. If, and that is a big IF.... I would love nothing more (honestly) than to see two term limits in all of politics. Fuck... the president onlly gets to serve two terms.. why do the the other politicians get be up there in Washington for damn near their whole lives? Both sides have lifers in Washngton. I would say fixing that problem would put an end to this constant back and forth bullshit. some of those bastards are in their late 70's and early 80's for krise sake!

 

[Mayhem]

I think it all sucks ass. If, and that is a big IF.... I would love nothing more (honestly) than to see two term limits in all of politics. Fuck... the president onlly gets to serve two terms.. why do the the other politicians get be up there in Washington for damn near their whole lives? Both sides have lifers in Washngton. I would say fixing that problem would put an end to this constant back and forth bullshit. some of those bastards are in their late 70's and early 80's for krise sake!

I've always felt that the best term limits were elections. Term limits are a knee-jerk solution, like mandatory sentencing, to make politicians feel like they are bringing about change, who weren't going to get re-elected anyway. Anyway, that's for each state to decide.

 

[Jagger69]

Point of order, Mr. OP... point of order.

Are we talking about fiscal conservatives, social conservatives or just people who have picked up on the political fad of referring to oneself as a "conservative"? If someone is pro-choice, but sees certain benefits in supply side economics, is that person a "conservative"? And if a person is pro-life, but supports nation building exercises that cost the taxpayers trillions of borrowed dollars, is that person a "conservative"? :dunno:

Well, maybe I should just say "republicans" since that seems to be, in practicality, where the divide is drawn (yesterday's vote on the jobs bill, for instance, was totally partisan in result with all of the Senate republicans voting against it.). That's what I am referring to when I say "conservative". Personally, I despise labels because, in truth, most of us are a mixture of various philosophies as they apply to specific issues as you pointed out (unless you simply blindly follow a certain doctrine or dogma without regard to actually thinking about alternative viewpoints to specific issues as possibly having any merit....I won't name names but we have a few individuals who fit that description on this forum).

I find it interesting that no one of the "conservative" viewpoint has directly answered my question thus far.

 

[Jack Davenport]

I haven't agreed to your premise because I am not convinced that it is true. If hard evidence was presented that crashing the economy was their intentions for political gain I'd be the first to say throw the bums out. Country first, politics second.

 

[luvsemlarge]

Jag, it's difficult for me to answer your question, as I wonder what all was in that Bill? Half the time there is so many other things in a Bill that causes some on both sides of the aisle to balk.

If the Obama's Bill was basically asking for more money, I'm glad they voted it down. The guy knows no meaning to the words STOP SPENDING.

 

[busaguy79]

Left or Right, Democrate or Republican, all it is right now is just bitch fighting, trying to get one up on the other and really thats not the best way to run the government!

I still feel there should by a 8 year limit in every part of governemt, local, state and national! Need to rid ourselves of career politicians who are just in it for themselves!

 

[meesterperfect]

1) congress is not trying to keep the economy in the gutter in order to get a republican in the white house in 2012.
(Although that is the kool-aid Obama and his party are selling).
They are just not letting Obama put it further into the gutter which by now everybody should realize that's what he's trying to do.
At this point letting Obama go on another spending spree is the same as giving a meth-head some money to go make a bank deposit for you.

Create a diversion, put the blame on somebody else to avoid suspicion/blame upon yourself.
It's a desperate measure, but effective these days thanks to the years of extreme liberalism that's been pounded into the peoples heads by the education system and the media..
Good is bad, bad is good. Hard workers taxed into the poor house, lazy baby machines rewarded with free money on a regular basis.
A Government that seems hell bent on ruining everything in every way possible and creating a society dependent on them...........but it's not their fault.

I am siding with the republicans on this. Ignore this man. Let him get up in front of the mic, make angry faces and blame it all on the other side all he wants but just ignore him.
And also, even if Obama is just a misunderstood victim of those bad republicans. If they sabatoged his presidency for whatever reasons people want to come up with, simple fact is that people and businesses simply aint gonna spend/invest until he's gone and that's reason enough to want him out.
I just hope the next one ain't Romney or Cain.

 

[dongkong]

I think you have different visions of what's good for the country. THe democrat party suggest that spending will get the economy moving. The republican's say that spending will cause even more long term problems and will not sold the problems. I personally side with the republicans on this issue. Its basic economic really.

 

[YumiYumi_1988]

Personally, I despise labels because, in truth, most of us are a mixture of various philosophies as they apply to specific issues as you pointed out

Agreed. I have much more respect for someone who has a set of beliefs that does not necessarily fit a fixed column and has good reasoning than someone who believes what I do but it's just simple conformation.

I find it interesting that no one of the "conservative" viewpoint has directly answered my question thus far.

Perhaps because they can sense the cynicism in your tone and do not necessarily believe what you are saying. I'm not too politically aware to be honest, but let's just say what you're saying is indeed going on. I disagree with the tactic, but I can see their viewpoint. But I don't approve cuz in the end I won't results for my country. I prefer we go a specific route in order to achieve them, but in the end, if we can reach those results, then it's all good.

 

[ThatRedWing]

For the record I will state my political views as, "Republicans need to stay out of my home and Democrats need to stay out of my wallet". I know this doesn't answer your question, but I'm going to say my piece.

The problem with the system is that every elected official is worried about the next election. Nobody has the balls to say that they don't care about the polls and just get the job done. People are afraid of the phrase flip-flop. Bullshit. If you make a compromise to get something more important done then it is not a flip-flop. Yes, you can have issues that you won't budge on. Choose your battles. The economy is not a fucking prize. Do we need to cut spending in Washington? Yes! Do we need to increase tax revenues? Yes! Get something done you self-important pricks. Do your job, at least you have one for now.

 

[LaLiLuLeLohan]

Your reply sort of goes to my question above. Yes, to some, as a (fiscal) libertarian, you might be considered to the right of some in the GOP. But the neocons base their philosophy on foreign policy issues. Fiscally, they're actually pretty darn liberal... it's just that they like to give my money away to foreign nations instead of domestic programs, unless it involves a tax loophole passing itself off as "supply side economics". If you give a neocon a credit card (made in China), he/she will max that baby out just as quick as the most left wing liberal. But if you're also a social libertarian, Michele Bachmann would have her hubby, Sweet Marcus, trying to "pray away your gay", if you stated that what a person does with his or her body is their own business and no one else's. Being OK with porn, pot smoking and abortion will not win you any friends in a gathering of (fiscally) "libertarian" Evangelicals.

I know I am sometimes, but I don't (usually) mean to be annoying. It's just that these terms are often used, but I'm not always sure what is meant.

You're not being annoying at all. And I can disagree with nothing you've said. I really wish we could re-define political philosophy. We now live in a word where William F Buckley and that shit stain, Herman Cain, are both considered "Conservative". Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are both "Conservatives" as well...especially when it's used as a pejorative.

I like to think of myself as a true Conservative instead of a Libertarian, but the NeoCons still own that title for most people.

That being said, I still don't consider the Bachmann supports/Evangelicals to be fiscally "Libertarian." Bachmann isn't for military budget cuts or leaving Afghanistan. She's still toeing the line.

 

[ragincaucasian]

I am not convinced that it is true. If hard evidence was presented that crashing the economy was their intentions for political gain

? really?
Where have you been since 2009? Thats ALL they've said the entire time (obstinate foot-dragging since the D took over). The 'other party' is no better, but to your claim....there is OVERWHELMING evidence out there (have you just not been paying attention?)

 

[pool_hustler]

I think you have different visions of what's good for the country. THe democrat party suggest that spending will get the economy moving. The republican's say that spending will cause even more long term problems and will not sold the problems. I personally side with the republicans on this issue. Its basic economic really.

So who's the last Republican president that decreased the national debt?

Here's a little trip down memory lane:

1) George W. Bush increased the debt by 6.6 trillion dollars
2) His father increased the debt by 1.4 trillion
3) Ronald Reagan increased the debt by 3.2 trillion dollars and took us from being the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation.
4) Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford increased the debt by 278 billion dollars
5) Dwight Eisenhower increased the debt by 26 billion dollars

And in answer to the OP, there's no question they're playing obstructionist politics. Several of them have come right out and said their top priority is defeating Obama. Mitch McConnell stated it was his "single most important goal". The same Obama who's incorporated a number of what were originally GOP ideas in some of his proposals only to have the GOP flip flop and stridently oppose them.

 

[Jack Davenport]

? really?
Where have you been since 2009? Thats ALL they've said the entire time (obstinate foot-dragging since the D took over). The 'other party' is no better, but to your claim....there is OVERWHELMING evidence out there (have you just not been paying attention?)

This is the Obama economy. "Foot dragging" is not sabotage. This is the lefts latest attempt to deflect the blame for this sick economy,

As for the evidence, I noticed that you didn't present any. Just regurgitated left wing talking points. You are supportive of OWS, correct? That tells me all I need to know about your objectivity.

 

[xfire]

I live in Deep East Texas, a region that votes 80% republican. I'm a bit of a fish out of water in my politics, but at the same time, I'm probably more "conservative" than your average democrat. Hell, I voted for several republicans in last years mid-term. I'm a member of the NRA and I'm in favor of securing the borders and sending illegals the fuck back to where they came. Having said that, anyone that thinks the republican party in it's current form is fiscally conservative is a complete tool that doesn't know history. The only thing the republican party doesn't want to spend money on is the poor. They're all for welfare to the wealthy but fuck those scumbag poor people. Every republican in the primary is in favor of a "flat tax" of some variety. All that means is hitting low income people to "pay their fair share". How the fuck do you support a party that demands the poorest among us pony up so that rich fuckers can have more tax cuts? That's goddamn pretzel logic if there ever were any.