"What are conservatives trying to conserve"?
 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ira-gl...b_1377280.html

"What are conservatives trying to conserve"?

Great article by Ira Glasser. Postulates a good explanation for alot of the hate and anger in current conservative political discourse during and after Obama's election, by going back to the 1950-1960's. References a good article by Jonathan Chait about how demographic changes in the US are rending the conservative movement in a fight for survival via ever-diminishing numbers.

Freedom!

You mean the Anti- freedom party, I beg to differ! Conservative want to control what a women does with her body, that's not freedom! They wanna control who we marry, that isn't freedom! They Hate FREEDOM they love POWER, and CONTROL! That is NOT freedom in my book!

..

22 March 12
The Science of Truthiness: Why Conservatives Deny Global Warming

http://www.desmogblog.com/science-tr...global-warming

There's lots of scientific study about the differences in how people think, and it's being applied to politics in interesting and new ways (and this article has a few comments about "liberals", too)

This is easily reversed depending on one's perspective.

The real anti-freedom party is the Democrats. They want to control what everybody does with their body. They wanna control what we eat - that isn't freedom. They want to ruthless destroy innocent life, regardless of what the father thinks, and depriving the mother of a free sonogram to evaluate her decision. They Hate FREEDOM they love POWER, and CONTROL.

Nonsense. Forced sonograms are not FREE. The WOMAN IS FORCED TO PAY FOR IT. Who do you think pays for it? The government doesn't. The doctor doesn't.

How dare you pass a law that a vaginal probe has to be stuck in a woman against her will, against her doctor's advice, and she has to pay for it. What legislators think they have the power and control to force government object rape of it's citizens? That is exactly what you are supporting. YOU say a woman can't make a decision about her own body without YOU putting your two cents in by forcing her to have a sonogram. Bull.****.

Most Americans are Pro-Family Planning.

Republicans (*not all, but many in the party now) are dead-set against family planning.

Republicans* are anti-family planning.
Republicans* are anti-individual family rights.
Republicans* are anti-individual freedom over one's own reproductive life.
Republicans* want the POWER and CONTROL to tell women what to do with their own bodies.
Republicans* HATE women having individual freedom.

Republicans are the ones passing laws to control what other people can do regarding their individual families, trying to control what a woman can do with her own body.

It's appalling. It's completely against every tenant of freedom, of individual liberty, this country has stood for.

I've never met anybody who is in favor of abortion. But you nor the government have no right to tell families what to do in the privacy of their own lives. You nor the government have no right to force birthing on any American citizen, any woman or family. Especially in the case of rape, incest, or a damaged unborn child.

Abortion is murder - period, end of story. And all the handwringing in the world will not change that. And murder of the innocent should never be allowed under the law.

We've covered this before. Nothing has changed. All your biased statements do not further your desired acceptance of abortion.

And if the Republicans fight abortion at every turn - so much the better. Enough. There has been enough fetal extermination since 1973 to last centuries.

Make no mistake: I am firmly anti-abortion. Where we differ is that I do not want to give the government unlimited power over individuals to force current legislators personal morality on American citizens. You want government control. I want individual freedom.

yes, we have covered this before. the bolded above, as i have said before, is your opinion. it's not a fact.
as for republicans, yes, some do fight it at every turn. it's probably one of the many reasons their membership continues to decrease every year. no doubt this issue, and others in which they show that they really aren't interested in smaller govt is why many turn to other candidates. the party of less intrusion is all for intrusion in certain circumstances.
you said they are trying to conserve freedom, yet you're explaining one freedom that should be taken away. don't you see the irony in that?

most republicans are simply anti abortion and would like that their tax dollars don't fund it, very few take the extreme positions that people here are ascribing to them, such as taking away freedoms(some would say freedom to murder). Abortion is trotted out every election cycle, it's used to whip folks into a frenzy, suddenly out of nowhere people are talking about a war on women, the equivalent of the American Taliban, huh? unfortunately it's all a sideshow to distract you from the real damage being done.
the truth is that these social issues are divisive and are not clearly defined by parties. abortion, gay marriage, they both have supporters and detractors in the major parties.

the size and scope of government is the main issue that divides the left and right. the left is only too happy to seek one government solution after another. people on the right simply wonder why when this approach is failing so miserably around the world do people keep pounding the drums for bailouts, new programs, higher taxes (on those other people), increased government spending, new social programs, government takeover of healthcare, etc, etc. please put down the kool aid, dust off your spectacles and take an honest look at what lies ahead. We are on an unsustainable path. doesn't anyone realize what that means? it mean your kids and grandkids will live with a reduced standard of living, that we are done moving forward and now will simply spiral down the drain. these economic shocks that we experienced recently are nothing like what is coming. there is not enough money in the world for us to pay off our obligations over the next 50 years and its our children who are going to be left holding the bag.
this isn't going to go away either, we won't wake up and it will all be gone like a bad dream, time won't heal this wound, it will only make it worse the more time that we continue in this way. we can either do something about it, or we can keep listening to the statists and con men in the government media complex who tell us that our government is wonderful and that they are really taking great care of things for us, when all they are really about is taking care of themselves..

The Hyde Amendment has made it illegal for federal funds to fund abortion for the past 30 years. Zero federal funds are used for abortion.

Republicans can rest assured that no federal funds ever have been, or are used, for abortion.

In spite of that, the facts are that Republicans in Congress and state governments have indeed waged an aggressive and newly renewed war on women's rights over the past two years, even trying to make birth control illegal. Let alone the multiple bills that have been passed this past year legalizing the government requiring object rape of women via vaginal ultrasound penetration, not only against the woman and doctors objection, but requiring the woman to pay for it.

That is nothing other than massive, unprecedented government interference of the individual rights of citizens of this country.

Birth control prevents abortions. A perfect example of a ridiculous war on women with the same Republican party presenting strangely opposing ideas: not only do they want to outlaw abortion that is now legal, but they want to outlaw the birth control that prevents abortions.

The numbers prove an unprecedented current attack on women, and their currently legal rights. To pretend otherwise is absurd. If one is a woman, this is no "sideshow of distraction". It is the reality of trying to keep women home and pregnant.

While we have never met, I am in favor of abortion. Too many unwanted kids out there as it is. I am also against fertility treatments for the same reason.

It's fascinating to me that during the 8 years Bush was running 2 unfunded wars, slashing taxes and forcing through a major new entitlement (Medicare Part D) not a peep was heard from conservatives. But come the inauguration of Obama, suddenly the deficit is the major threat to America's future. And the only way to deal with it, of course, is to slash programs for the poor and middle class. Because shut up, that's why.

Come on, now. Your guy, Cheney, said, and I quote, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."

Unless you were posting lots of screeds here against runaway Republican spending during the years 2000-2008. You may have; I don't remember. Please post links to those threads if you did.

Modern conservatism can be summed up in, "If libruls are fer it, we're agin' it!"

that quote is 100% correct. What also is 100% correct is the librul motto "if repubs are for it we are against it"

its the main reason our country is so fucl<ed up. both parties just attack each other, there is no middle ground.....

UNTIL


you go behind the scenes and the guys from both parties are golfing and drinking and laughing to each other about how they've punked the american people into thinking the sides are different from each other and that the government gives a crap about the people they are supposed to represent.


the Bush years sucked. the Obama years have been equally as shitty, with no end in sight.

This is the prevailing wind right now.

So the owners of the government realize that they have been discovered so what is their next step? Use their owned media to incite a race war. It will shift focus while they continue to pick our pockets.

Not sure what the banksters will do, likely nothing since things do not seem to change (or hope) concerning them.
My plan;
Tear the whole thing down and start from scratch using the easily understood, plain English language of the Constitution as a guideline. That and no more career pols, that is where it all went wrong, go to DC, do your work and go back into the real world and work like the rest of us.

:$:
:tro:

i think for many it's not that they're necessarily in favor of abortion or want it performed. however, for many, they don't feel it's their right to tell others what to do. some people don't want to be told either, but they feel perfectly ok in foisting their opinon on others in return!
those against abortion don't have to support it, don't have to ever get one. but they have no right pushing that set of beliefs (not facts even if they want to say it's a fact as to when life begins ,etc) onto other people. besides, what affect does it have on you, or me, or anyone else if a woman makes that choice? nothing.
however, if some had the ability to change the rules, that would have an adverse affect on many others who no longer have the ability to decide for themselves.

Why then do you support Obamacare? Last I checked supporting Obamacare doesn't involve individual freedom

because it's obama care. if it was bush care, she'd be against it. no, that's not really true.

thing is, it's got nothing to do with logic at all. it's illogical to complain if it's knocked down as unconstitutional, but the same people complaining about that ruling are all for other rulings-altho another group would argue that other rulings (such as roe v wade) are incorrect. you know, like gun control. it's constitutionally protected-but suddenly what was once so clear (privacy is a right, freedom of religion is a right) suddenly isn't quite so clear, is it??

bah, yet another type of argument used by both parties and their supporters. each uses the constitution to support their pov, and then tries to show why it shouldn't be used in others.

and those of us who try to apply it across the board....we're genuises or morons, depending on the particular topic and who agrees or disagrees. it's great.

well said. I just want less government. People have to live with their own choices and the government can't protect stupid people from making stupid choices. The less government involvement in my life the better.

Actually it does: the mandate, requiring individual personal responsibility for one's health care costs, rather than putting your cost on others, by purchasing your own insurance is a staunchly Republican- and conservative- created idea for the past 20 years.

The mandate = personal responsibility. No freeloading off others.

Actually, yes, I was for the Obamacare plan when it was the Heritage Foundation-created Republican-offered Gingrich-care presented as a personal freedom, free-market solution by the GOP against Hillarycare in the 1990s.

The Republicans are just pissed they couldn't get it passed, and Obama stole their plan and did pass it.

I am personally against abortion. But I don't think it's my place, or big government's place, to tell you what to do regarding your family planning. That's between you and your doctor.

Yes, I would much rather a woman have an abortion, then later welcome a child into her life when she can take good care of it.

The government forcing women to birth the babies conceived out of rape or incest, or carry defective babies to term, is just sick torture.

I am not talking republican/democrat. I am specifically pointing out that on the one hand you want individual freedom from the goverment on one topic and then on another you want a government mandate. That is all. Thanks.

I am pointing out that being responsible for purchasing one's own health insurance, rather than living off everyone else's $$$ by us paying your costs of going to the ER when you're sick and uninsured, is plenty of individual freedom and responsibility. That is all. Thanks.

Here is an excellent analysis piece on the legislative history of the "individual mandate" - it's been around since Ronald Reagans first unfunded universal health care requirement mandate:

I am against the federal government forcing anyone to do anything other than pay a reasonable tax to support infrastructure, military defense and a system of currency.
Let the states make a few laws and regulations and compete for the citizens and businesses that are looking for homes. It wasn't just the landscape that moved me to Colorado.

What do you suppose a couple who weigh a combined 800lbs because they've done nothing but eat, with pre-existing conditions of diabetes, high blood pressure and heart trouble, each needing knee replacements will be quoted on a policy?

What amount will they be supplemented with?

Will the taxpayer ultimately paying for their insurance receive preferential treatment or will they be treated equal to the couple they're paying for?

Obamacare is nothing but a guise for socialized healthcare. Where individuals will no longer be charged based on individual needs but rather the needs of others even if the need others may have was self induced.

Any sense of equality be damned as you will no longer pay based on individual health/risk but rather how healthy your bank account is.

Just another reward given out for bad behavior, similar to welfare, section 8 housing and food stamps. Instead of encouraging women to wait till marriage to have babies, we pay them to have babies before marriage and the more babies the more :$::$:. :zz:

How about auto insurance?

So if you don't want the government to mandate insurance then I assume you are good with paying astronmical rates for yours as Hospitals pass the cost of all those that don't have insurance but show up to the Emergency room that they have to treat.

How about being forced to supplement a three time DUI offender because he/she can't afford the 20K a year for SR2 insurance?

Hope you are not near the wildfires!

Not too far, but safe, thanks. The whole area is covered in smoke, it looks pretty bad.

in the case of auto insurance you are voluntarily seeking to drive your car, nobody is forcing you to drive a car. Having insurance as a precondition to driving your car is not the same as requiring that you purchase health insurance just because you are alive. if you don't want to buy auto insurance you have alternatives, whereas with health insurance they're saying that you either buy it or pay a penalty.

part of the problem is that nobody can define why it's okay for government to mandate that you buy insurance, but not okay for government to say mandate that you buy only American made products. they are trying to claim that health insurance is a special case, but the arguments don't hold up. the idea behind our constitution is to protect us from government tyranny like this awful health care legislation.

Watch the lungs on the horses and dogs - and you - and stay safe :D

The government commerce clause argument is that everybody uses health care, thus everybody is a consumer of health care. It's a good one, and has already been upheld by two very conservative and well-respected district court judges. The odds are great that the Supremes will do the same in June.

A study was released yesterday that says only like 2-5% of people will be affected by the mandate. Most Americans are exactly as they are now - completely unaffected by Obamacare except for increased consumer protections they now enjoy. I'll try and find it.

Found it: Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1qSBh8Fwd

Here's a great article, which quotes in depth Ezra Klein's analysis of R-Paul Ryans budget plan, including his privatization of Medicare. Ryans "premium support" Medicare plan? Turn Medicare into Obamacare. Same thing.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...ization-Dream-

"What are conservatives trying to conserve"?
 

Don't bet on it; the only question in my mind is how far the Supremes will go. Entire ACA or just parts of it?

Time to go for the single-payer system like just about every other modern nation in the world. Unconstitutional to force "commerce" on someone, but perfectly constitutional to provide a needed service to that same someone using powers that already exist.


Ocala Mike