Who are American politicians beholden to? The People? The Constitution?

[DaShi]

Perhaps you two should keep less secrets or learn how to express your opinions properly.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Black and white thinking is a symptom of a litany of mental illnesses and disorders. There's little point in debating you on this matter. Your opinion conflicts with humanity. I can't be incorrect because I am simply rephrasing common definitions. It's you versus the world on this matter, sir.

My point was you would be incorrect in assuming that I think governement is bad all the time. There are legit reasons and purposes of government. The arguement that one can do it (Arguably and contestedly more efficiently) than the other is not justification. Nor is simple need.

[Aeson]

Equally large if not larger is the embiggening of the pie, the generation of technology and wealth (and its distribution thereof) fueled primarily via capitalistic enterprise.

Yes, but that's not relevant to the matter I was responding to.

[Sava]

My point was you would be incorrect in assuming that I think governement is bad all the time.

Then by DD's definition, you aren't a conservative. Nothing I said applies to you.

[Sava]

Sava: I'm of the opinion that my definition of an efficient government would qualify as "destroying" it based on your simple minded posts on what conservatives think.

I'm simply restating common definitions. If you have issue with their "simple minded" nature, perhaps you should become an expert in political science and work towards changing such definitions.

My gut reaction reaction to your views on specific public policies isn't relevant. I'm going to insult you regardless of what you think... even if you agree with me.

[Aeson]

We've spent 16 trillion since the War on Poverty began and we've barely moved the needle wrt the Poverty rate and there's only been increasing stickiness at the bottom of the economic ladder.

Again, not relevant. Just because some forms of "social safety nets" don't or haven't worked (and really, aren't safety nets at all) doesn't mean that social safety nets have no value.

[Aeson]

Course we need to do it differently. The idea that governement provides efficiency and a better way of doing things is on its face the crux of the matter.

One ideology believes this the other does not.

And both are moronic ideologies because they try to polarize something that has always lead to atrocities when polarized.

Government does some things very well. It does some things very poorly. Same can be said of the free market+charity.

[Sava]

Government does some things very well. It does some things very poorly. Same can be said of the free market+charity.

This makes you a statist, no different from Stalin and Hitler!

[Aeson]

I ordered my death squads to commit genocide against beetles and caterpillars just the other day.

[Sava]

BTW, I fully support this new definition of conservatism and subsequent worldview. Only a very small minority of people within American conservative circles subscribe to this ridiculous notion, let alone the general population. People who polarize politics in this manner only marginalize themselves, all but guaranteeing victory to the Democrats. Sure, highly motivated astroturf campaigns can produce gains in off-year elections when the economy struggles. This is more a product of anti-incumbency sentiments rather than support for "conservatism".

Considering that I think Republicans are an absolutely immoral bunch on nearly every issue, this is a good thing.

A few years ago, I was a bit discouraged by the successes of the Rovian Republicans. Karl Rove is a highly opportunistic political operative. The outright rejection of his methods and philosophies on the part of Republicans in favor of ideological extremists is the greatest gift to Democrats one could imagine.

For the most part, my main concerns now are rooting out corruption within the Democratic party and supporting camps that support policies I agree with.

As far as Republicans are concerned, I hope they continue to stick to their guns.

[regexcellent]

That's pretty ironic considering she was basically my political hero growing up. I've softened on a few issues since, but I still consider her the greatest British PM since Churchill.

Apparently you didn't fully understand what she stood for then.

[Straybow]

You realize that Reagan also raised taxes in the middle of his term right? Some folks have called the 1986 tax bill as the largest tax increase in history. He did so when he realized the economic growth wasn't taking care of the deficit as he thought it was - so he reversed some of his 1981 tax cuts. It would be unthinkable in today's Republican Party.

And the pulling out of US marines when they were bombed by Lebanon. He didn't really fight "hot" wars unless he know he had overwhelming firepower. He would have been completely against Iraq.

Also, you know, amnesty.

None of those examples were products of Reagan's conservatism. The tax hike and amnesty were specific compromises with Dumbocrat controlled House, and in each case the Dumbocrats failed to deliver their part of the bargain.

Pulling marines out of Lebanon was conservative. Their numbers were too few to do the job and getting embroiled with sufficient numbers and rules of engagement to do the job was outside the scope of the UN mandate. He never said anything about the first Gulf War, even to his biographer. No, you can't claim he'd oppose action against Iraq.

David Cameron.

The guy who let the Lockerby bomber out of prison (where he could be treated under the "envy of the world" healthcare system) to go home and be lauded by his fellow barbarians?

[Krill]

The guy who let the Lockerby bomber out of prison (where he could be treated under the "envy of the world" healthcare system) to go home and be lauded by his fellow barbarians?

HAHAHAHA.

You're retarded. Go read wikipedia, noob.

[Straybow]

In other words, the "European kind" of conservative isn't conservative enough to tell the difference between conservative and liberal until their system fails completely?

The difference is that we're not stupid enough to need the wildly polarized political spectrum you seem to require. Never mind that it's hugely damaging to your country and its long term development.

Liberalism is all about making conservatives compromise. A liberal never has to compromise on an issue. When was the last time a liberal compromised on abortion? Gun control? Capital punishment? Free speech? Ask them to compromise on a budget and they claim conservatives are going to poison the planet and starve children and elderly (nevermind the budget item being cut has nothing to do with either). Imran's vaunted "worldwide" conservatives are always surrendering ground to the liberals, never the other way around. The exceptions such as Thatcher are so rare as to be nearly singular.

European politics generally involves groups of at least vaguely intelligent people discussing complex issues. In most of Europe politicians have to listen to different lines of thought because many of the countries involve coalition governments. When was the last time a hardcore Republican 'listened to anyone who thinks differently'? Or you for that matter.

See above. We have to listen to liberal crap all the time, it is unavoidable. It even spews at a fairly consistent rate from people who claim to be conservative but have compromised to the liberal agenda. They want to be liked and think if they compromise someone like you will stop calling them names, but you just move on to another area of disagreement to direct your name-calling.

Do they? Is that what European conservatives do? The same European conservatives that you apparently didn't know existed until about 2 pages ago? ****ing dip****.

What "2 pages ago" non-sequitur? I certainly don't hear you condemning terrorists who actually and intentionally kill innocent civilians with the same vehemence you condemn eeeevil capitalists and conservatives. No, you actually address the latter as equivalent to the former. Just like the liberal drumbeat.

Drinking excessive alcohol and smoking/chewing tobacco results in easily predictable illness and death. Do you wish to ban them?

As they only involve direct harm to the recipient then no I don't give a ****.

But they don't harm only the boozer/smoker. You pay for their health care when they get an entirely preventable illness. That illness takes them out of the workforce on disability before they might otherwise retire, reducing their contribution to productivity and putting a greater load on the rest. Drunks cause traffic accidents that harm others. Smokers are guilty of crimes against humanity with their second-hand smoke!

You'd love that, wouldn't you.

No, just mocking the accusations the left routinely makes against conservatives. Again, the supposedly conservative kentonio thinks and acts just like a liberal.

Safety nets are designed to stop people falling too far to recover. Not completely eradicating poverty is a stupid strawman that means nothing. It's like saying 'Ok, you stopped a million people starving to death, but they're still quite hungry! Your project has therefore failed!'.

But the poor as a whole weren't starving to death; they haven't since the potato famine. They weren't completely without health care. All you've done is give them somewhat better support in certain areas. You say you want to prevent them "falling too far to recover" and yet many do. You can't "safety net" them from hurting themselves and their dependents.

I said "eradicate" as hyperbole, which should have been obvious. There is a small percentage that is unavoidable, and it must be much smaller than the UK's 15-17% or the 14%-ish USA rate. What exactly has the safety net done when the poverty rate hasn't changed? That means you haven't created a solution. If you could cut it in half, or maybe by a quarter, then you could point to resounding success. If you could merely make the growth rate a fraction smaller than the population growth rate you could point to a systemic decline. Even that measure of progress is not met.

The fact that you see issues like extreme poverty as an attempt to force you into 'vague moral outrage' says it all really. You're damn right it's about the seriousness of the issue. If safety net programs aren't working well then fix them, but trying to just remove that support from people who desperately need it makes you a soulless ***** who should be fed to wild dogs.

You've hit the nail on the head, but don't even realize it. Who says conservatives want to remove the safety net? That is the accusation leveled by the libs every time conservatives try to fix the flaws of the safety net. Again, you show that there is vanishingly little difference between kentonio the pseudoconservative and liberal wacko propaganda. You don't even demonstrate that you know what conservatives are and do.

I wish I could isolate the moment in time when the American right decided that things like scientific process and critical thinking were just leftist babble. There must have been a time when the right was noticable less ****ing stupid. I used to quite admire the Republican party once upon a time, so this surely must be true.

Do tell. Whom did you admire, and what conservative goal did these wonderful politicians accomplish? I suppose by "scientific process" you are probably referring to your buddies at East Anglia. Again, no difference between kentonio the conservative and the environuts.

We are at an ideological impasse. You claim Thatcher as your hero. I propose you name one specific ideology that identifies you as a recognizable conservative.

[Sava]

they haven't since the potato famine.

Nobody has starved since the potato famine!

Oh my God you are such a delusional moron. Thank you

I needed a good laugh.