Conservatism’s core beliefs

You clearly don't understand the impact that an artificially inflated economy has when the bubble pops.

You have yet to present me with any documentary evidence that we had an artificially inflated currency leading up to the crash of ‘29. Do you even understand the various types of money supply we have? Not all money that can be exchanged for goods and services is physical money, i.e., coin or paper currency. Most of our money supply is usually bookkeeping records.

The FED can increase the money supply as represented by bookkeeping records by buying bonds and other securities from banks and then giving the sellers credits that they can circulate as if they were physical money (coin and paper currency), and this does have the potential of causing inflation. But when I say the 1920s was a bubble in which the value of the economy was greater than the amount of money in existence it is not these FED credits or any other bookkeeping assets that I am talking about but rather coin and currency that is issued by the Congress.

I know, you still persist in claiming the welfare state of Britain saved them

Do you deny that unemployment in Britain during the Great Depression period in the U.S. was lower than it was in the U.S.? Do you deny that per capita income in the U.S. during this period fell more than it did in Britain? Do you deny that the British economy began a sustained recovery by the end of 1933 when the U.S. economy did not have a sustained recovery until after 1941? You deny the facts because the facts don’t support your rhetoric.

while the German welfare state sank that country... Very consistent.

I did not say this. What I said is the German welfare system put Germany on the verge of bankruptcy so the government could not afford to deal with the Great Depression thereby driving German voters to the Nazi Party. If Germany had not had such an extensive welfare system, it would have had the financial leeway to combat the Great Depression.

I said no such thing, which is why you're arguing against a strawman.

Post #66. You implied that the FED took us off the gold standard by printing more money than we had gold to back. I merely pointed out that the FED has no power to print money. You claimed that the U.S. was taken off of the gold standard in response to the stock market crash of 1929 when in fact the U.S. was still on the gold standard until 1933- some 3 1/2 years after the crash. The U.S. was taken off the gold standard because the Great Depression caused such deflation that the cost of production for goods and services was often higher than the price consumers were able to pay because so little physical money was available for circulation. Making up for the loss of credit that followed the stock market crash had nothing to do with us leaving the gold standard.
 
Werbung:
You have yet to present me with any documentary evidence that we had an artificially inflated currency leading up to the crash of ‘29.
Its called Fractional Reserve Banking and in any other industry, the practice would qualify as fraud.

Most of our money supply is usually bookkeeping records.
Enron had a lot of money too... Oh wait. :rolleyes:

You deny the facts because the facts don’t support your rhetoric.
You create these strawmen because you can't argue against my actual statements. I didn't deny the facts of unemployment and per capita... I said the UK didn't have a bubble (which you agree) and didn't have as far to fall.

You credit the British welfare state for saving the UK from the Great Depression but blame the German welfare state for sinking Germany.

I did not say this.... If Germany had not had such an extensive welfare system, it would have had the financial leeway to combat the Great Depression.
You just said it again!!! :D

You implied that the FED took us off the gold standard
I said the US abandoned the gold standard.

You claimed that the U.S. was taken off of the gold standard in response to the stock market crash of 1929
I said the purpose of going off the gold standard was to print currency in greater quantities than could be backed by gold, i.e., inflate the currency.

Strawman-motivational.jpg
 
That life experience comes with a lifetime of bias meaning you define and affix labels without any objective criteria.

I used to fall for the libertarian rhetoric about low taxes and market deregulation and was foolish enough to believe this was conservatism because people like Ronald Reagan and Rush Limbaugh said it was. But with more education and a better understanding of history along with more exposure to non-libertarian opinions, I now know that what libertarians tout as conservatism is seldom really conservatism.

And that's your life experience. That's how you've created your rationale.

Not saying it's correct... I totally disagree with it. But that's how you developed it.

I did the exact same thing. When I was young almost everybody in my family was a Republican except for a few cousins and maybe a random Aunt or Uncle somewhere. Probably the only Democrat the majority of my family ever voted for back then was Kennedy. So I started out very Republican. Then after Vietnam dragged on and then Watergate I formally declared as an Independent.

Really liked Clinton's first term and switched to Democrat to help out on his second term campaign, WON. Didn't do much for Gore because I thought he was a shoe in, LOST. Worked for Kerry at about three quarter speed, LOST. Then so totally irritated & pissed off with Bush I worked 110% for Obama and WON BIG.

During that time I did a lot of growing both as a businessman and with a couple small but satisfying elected position wins for myself and my family has almost completely switched to the Democratic Party. Now there's just my younger brother and maybe an Aunt or Uncle left that still register as Republicans.

So I've been around the block too my friend. I'm a moderate, when I label myself today I proudly say... I'm a Clinton Democrat.;)


 
And that's your life experience. That's how you've created your rationale.

Not saying it's correct... I totally disagree with it. But that's how you developed it.

I did the exact same thing. When I was young almost everybody in my family was a Republican except for a few cousins and maybe a random Aunt or Uncle somewhere. Probably the only Democrat the majority of my family ever voted for back then was Kennedy. So I started out very Republican. Then after Vietnam dragged on and then Watergate I formally declared as an Independent.

Really liked Clinton's first term and switched to Democrat to help out on his second term campaign, WON. Didn't do much for Gore because I thought he was a shoe in, LOST. Worked for Kerry at about three quarter speed, LOST. Then so totally irritated & pissed off with Bush I worked 110% for Obama and WON BIG.

During that time I did a lot of growing both as a businessman and with a couple small but satisfying elected position wins for myself and my family has almost completely switched to the Democratic Party. Now there's just my younger brother and maybe an Aunt or Uncle left that still register as Republicans.

So I've been around the block too my friend. I'm a moderate, when I label myself today I proudly say... I'm a Clinton Democrat.;)

Thank you for that.

Now about me, at about the age of five I realized that liberalism sucks and fails consistently. So, applying a little logic, I concluded that conservatism is the only answer. Meaning, we must follow the Constitution as it was intended by the Founders.

While I have voted primarily R, I have never registered as one because so many R's are really liberals such as Nixon, Ford, Bush I, and Bush II. And this leads to something I have long thought. Why do liberals hate the GOP, yet most Rs are progressives? So, I conclude that most liberals are too dumb to have figured this out. Their leaders have told them to hate the GOP. So, they hate the GOP.

PS. I could never vote for a liar, womenizer, and baby killing advocate...

clinton_mylife_sucks.jpg
 
Thank you for that.

Now about me, at about the age of five I realized that liberalism sucks and fails consistently. So, applying a little logic, I concluded that conservatism is the only answer. Meaning, we must follow the Constitution as it was intended by the Founders.

While I have voted primarily R, I have never registered as one because so many R's are really liberals such as Nixon, Ford, Bush I, and Bush II. And this leads to something I have long thought. Why do liberals hate the GOP, yet most Rs are progressives? So, I conclude that most liberals are too dumb to have figured this out. Their leaders have told them to hate the GOP. So, they hate the GOP.

PS. I could never vote for a liar, womenizer, and baby killing advocate...

For me it was back during high-school when I worked for the right of 18 year old to be able to vote...thought that it was highly imperative that if they would draft the young men and send them off to die that we should at least have some say in the type to war we would risk our lives for!

Working for McGovern's election campaign got me interested in the real person behind the scenes that we running for office...Oh, to go back to those days and change that outcome and have Nixon loose and McGovern win...now that would be an interesting replay of history! He was very anti Vietnam, very Pro-Choice, interested in our crop production and getting the good grains into our food production for all AMERICANS, and feeding every public school child a balance meal for lunch as well as the native Americans in his home state of Nebraska.

George S. McGovern reminded me of JFK in many ways; he researched the reason that the poorest of the poor weren't getting the daily nutrition that they needed and he placed as the head of the FOOD 4 PEACE program and then he later started the Americans for Common Sense...just a well rounded informed American trying to do the right thing!
 
Thank you for that.

Now about me, at about the age of five I realized that liberalism sucks and fails consistently. So, applying a little logic, I concluded that conservatism is the only answer. Meaning, we must follow the Constitution as it was intended by the Founders.

While I have voted primarily R, I have never registered as one because so many R's are really liberals such as Nixon, Ford, Bush I, and Bush II. And this leads to something I have long thought. Why do liberals hate the GOP, yet most Rs are progressives? So, I conclude that most liberals are too dumb to have figured this out. Their leaders have told them to hate the GOP. So, they hate the GOP.

PS. I could never vote for a liar, womenizer, and baby killing advocate...

We are all painfully aware that you have the same mental capacity now that you did at five years old.;)

 
I realized that liberalism sucks and fails consistently.
We are all painfully aware that you have the same mental capacity now that you did at five years old

Can you please explain how liberalism has helped California, the state that everyone looks to for "progress". If you say it has done ANYTHING positive economically, socially, or politically, then you are painfully unable to see truth for what it is and not what you make up in your utopian mind... like most five year olds.
 
Can you please explain how liberalism has helped California, the state that everyone looks to for "progress". If you say it has done ANYTHING positive economically, socially, or politically, then you are painfully unable to see truth for what it is and not what you make up in your utopian mind... like most five year olds.

California has it's own unique set of circumstances & problems. And as we all know California even has a Republican governor.

But that not withstanding one could just as easily cherry pick Conservative Southern or Bible Belt states and point to a myriad of problems there as well.



CONSERVATIVE HYPOCRISY BY THE NUMBERS

Certainly a society that teaches the values of the religious right must have "clean living" written all over it. And ripe fruit of their morally superior lives abounding.

It doesn't. Far from it. Joining its history of Biblically correct bigotry and discrimination, it is an area with the highest divorce, murder, STD/HIV/AIDS, teen pregnancy, infant mortality, and obesity rates in the nation. With pencil and report card in hand, let's take a peak at this morally superior and not shy about it "Christian nation" in the south whose only rise seems to be the one in their pants.

As you will clearly see, if the priests of religious conservatism were required to clean up their own house before addressing ours, we would never hear from them again. We can only dream.

BIBLE BELT IS A DIVORCE BELT:

NCPA - Social Issues - Bible Belt Leads U.S. In Divorces

"Aside from the quickie-divorce Mecca of Nevada, no region of the United States has a higher divorce rate than the Bible Belt."

Bible Belt Couples 'Put Asunder' More, Despite New Efforts. Highest rate of increase of cohabitation:

The number of unmarried couples living together jumped by 97 percent in Oklahoma, 125 percent in Arkansas and 123 percent in Tennessee. These increases in the buckle of the Bible Belt are well above the 72 percent increase in unmarried couples that the census found in the nation as a whole."

"A posse of public health nurses, social workers, pastors and extension agents has been deputized to bring down a divorce rate that in Oklahoma, as in several states across the Bible Belt, is among the highest in the country."

U.S. divorce rates: for various faith groups, age groups and geographical areas.

Divorce rates among conservative Christians were much higher than for other faith groups. George Barna, president and founder of Barna Research Group, commented:

"While it may be alarming to discover that born again Christians are more likely than others to experience a divorce, that pattern has been in place for quite some time. Even more disturbing, perhaps, is that when those individuals experience a divorce many of them feel their community of faith provides rejection rather than support and healing. But the research also raises questions regarding the effectiveness of how churches minister to families. The ultimate responsibility for a marriage belongs to the husband and wife, but the high incidence of divorce within the Christian community challenges the idea that churches provide truly practical and life-changing support for marriages."

SNS Online Oklahomans marry young, don't stay hitched.

"Although it is in the buckle of the Bible Belt, conservative Oklahoma with its population of 3 million, has a divorce rate more than twice as high as New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and other populous states."

By the hypocrites, these are the constantly demonized liberal states of the Northeast.

"Only neighboring Arkansas has a higher divorce rate, if you discount Nevada where "quickie" divorces are big business."

TEEN PREGNANCY BELT

Dept of Health and Human Services: DHHS

In 'Abstinence-only' country: Bexar County, TX: 40 per 1000. National average, 22 per 1000

Below from: National and State-Specific Pregnancy Rates Among White Adolescents ---

TOP 20

1....TX......106
2.....NM......104
3.....DEL.....102
4.....AK...100
5.....ARK.....87
6.....GA.......85
7.....ALA.....84
8.....NC.....84
9.....OR.....84
10....TN....82
11....KS...79
12....NY.....78
13....KY.....77
14....CO....73
15....SC.....72
16....LA.....69
17.....ME.....69
18.....MISS.....68
19.....WVA.....68
20....OHIO....67

When President Bush was Governor of Texas he instituted the abstinence-only sex-ed programs within the state. Soon after Texas reached the highest teen pregnancy birth rate of any state in the union and also one of the highest STD rates among teenagers.

THE BIBLE BELT IS THE HOMOCIDE BELT:

BIBLE BELT IS THE UNHEALTHY BELT:

THE BIBLE BELT IS AN HIV BELT

THE BIBLE BELT IS A CHLAMYDIA BELT

THE BIBLE BELT IS A GONORRHEA BELT

THE BIBLE BELT IS A SYPHILIS BELT

"By region*, the South had the highest rate.

USA: Most religious western nation has weakest families

From the USA Today article:

In the USA, 8.1% of coupled households are made up of unmarried, heterosexual partners. Although many European countries have higher cohabitation rates, divorce rates in those countries are lower, and more children grow up with both biological parents, even though the parents may not be married, Popenoe says.

The USA has the lowest percentage among Western nations of children who grow up with both biological parents, 63%, the report says.

"The United States has the weakest families in the Western world because we have the highest divorce rate and the highest rate of solo parenting," Popenoe says.

As you can see, the most religious part of the USA has the weakest families in the USA. The USA has the weakest families in the western world. And we play religion like it makes a difference. It does not.


 
McGovern was a single issue candidate, and was perceived as being far more liberal that the voters of that time were ready to accept, so he lost the election. Nixon, on the other hand, was a savvy politician who understood that the way to win was not to espouse any particular solution to the problems of the day, but to try to be ambiguous enough that voters of different persuasions can be led to support you, or at least not actively oppose you.

Nixon's strategy was to say that he had a plan (unspecified, of course) to end the war. His strategy worked, and he was elected. It turned out that Nixon's plan was basically the same as McGovern's: pull the troops out and go home, let the chips fall where they may. No doubt McGovern would have ended the war more quickly than his opponent did, but the result would have been the same.

The only strange thing about the Nixon years is how a battle scarred veteran of political wars chose to protect supporters who were foolish enough to break into the Watergate and spy on the opposition. It is a mystery why he didn't just throw them under the bus and keep his credibility as president.

Oh well, a mystery or two is what makes politics such a fascinating spectator sport.
 
Unless you have grown up since then and I so no evidence of your materity, you are still a red diaper doper baby. McGovern was so outside the main stream. It is proof you obviously are on the far left wing fringe of American political thought. Just one man's opinion sweetie pie...

Good Grief...if I was as sensitive as some of the WHINER CROWD around here that paragraph would have been sent immediately to the mods so that they could provide you with a 'SMACK DOWN'. BUT I'M NOT...I enjoy the give and take and since I can give it right back...I'll ignore your vile remarks and talk to the point. :mad:

McGovern didn't fire his VP from the campaign he allowed him to resign after the Republicans found out that he had been given electro shock therapy sometime in his past and he became a media 3 ring circus and that wasn't what he wanted for George McGovern to be remembered as ;)

At the time all of this was going down George McGovern was fighting for school integration and working on the school lunch programs {public schools & the native Americans}...so if in you limited ability to just spew that constant LIBERAL B.S. and not really understand the Man behind the name...then that is just a shame for you and your maturity {or the lack thereof} :)

His policies about Vietnam were the exact same that many others thought and voiced behind the scenes but were not brave enough to go out front and go on print/media moments that they felt the same way!
 
Here are three of the worst presidents of all time...if we get three more like these three progressives, the fat lady will have song...well actually three more years should just about do us in.

r2893544663.jpg
 
Werbung:
Past ideologies do not apply today. Conservatives are not very conservative and almost no democrats are liberal in any shape and form.

Conservatives sound like socialists sometimes when talking about foreign trade or immigration.

Democrats have made destroying civil liberties the cornerstone of their agenda. I will never call a democrat today a liberal. A true liberal is probably going to have to vote libertarian.
 
Back
Top