Rich Guys on a Mission:
This could also serve as a partial explanation as to why repealing inheritance taxes is so central to the message of many of these insurgent GOP primary winners.
But, it is not actively hostile to them.
But, they do need it. In fact, many of them are dependent on Social Security and Medicare.
But, what you are describing is not the Hard Left. The Hard Left in Congress is Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders and that’s about it – and they’re RWs by many democracies’ standards. And Obama, like Clinton, represents the right wing of the Democratic Party.
Such as?
Certainly not. Look around the world. How many industrial democracies devote significantly less than that to government?
Say illegal immigration. It makes sense to control your borders for a number of reasons. Once controlled then you can decide how many people you actually need to do the work and they come in on your terms.
And am I supposed to believe they want any brown people to come in? Am I supposed to believe that they actually care if someone brown is legal or not, or an immigrant or not?
Conservative candidates have generally always received more small donations, Democrats have relied on big donations from coastal elites. This has been overlooked because of the stereotype that big business and plutocrats are the only constituency of the GOP. The Tea Party as a separate force may emerge from the dissatisfaction of this large grassroots conservative bloc with the GOP, which they’d traditionally treated as the vehicle for conservatism. GWB was so fundamentally un-conservative on spending, immigration, and foreign adventurism (as was McCain to an extent) that the grassroots may have started deciding no longer to let the GOP take their support for granted or speak as the “conservative” party of America.
I am a brown person. And I am a conservative.
Are you a teabagger? That was they “they” I was referring to.
Regardless; given the depth of the racism in American conservatism you are working against your own self interest.
That’s…pretty much completely wrong.
I dunno, you seem to think I’m right wing and I don’t care what color a person is. But then Canada is different, I guess. As long as the person has the minimum qualifications in English or French, is going to benefit Canada (based upon whatever qualifications the government sets), and leaves their baggage back home ( eg. Continue to fight battles in our country because the other fellow is from another country/village/sect/religion, etc., and their stone age practices, wife burnings/stonings/Sharia), then I don’t care. I can’t answer for the Tea Party, though.
About like Earth and Mars are different.
Well you’ve certainly proved your point there. You showed me a thing or two! Why waste the keystrokes on such a nothing reply? I mean, your prolific ranting suggests you have a lot of time on your hands, but what did that little tossed-off (literally) nothing of a response add to the conversation?
Wait, I know where you’re going because I think I’ve seen it before.
You aren’t going to agree to any definition of “conservative” that means anything other than “evil.” You’re not going to agree to any suggestion that GWB was not “conservative” in any meaningful, traditional way. You’re not going to agree to any definition of “conservative” that means anything except “everyone who I hate” (and make no mistake that some of the most frothing hate actually on display on this board (no one’s explicitly bashing Jews or immigrants or blacks in the type of language you readily use for conservatives, mostly) is your rabid rants about the evil of anyone to the right of you) and you’re not going to admit that when nearly half of the country identifies as somewhat “conservative,” it’s approaching insane for you to make blanket declarations that those self-identified conservatives – half your fellow Americans – are without any redeeming quality or any moral standing.
GWB and the modern GOP have by any definition departed from a historic, dictionary based understanding of what words (words have meaning), and in particular conservatism means:
Spending money you don’t have is not conservative (safe, etc.) on any of those definitions. Vastly increasing the federal government’s (constitutionally non-supported) role in local education is not avoidance of radical or basic change. Going on foreign adventures to nation-build or support some grand vision of reforming an entire region is not conservative (“avoiding overreaching”). Advocating a sea change in the makeup of the population of a long-established cohesive nation state through immigration amnesty is not “oppposed to radical or basic change.”
To the extent that the neocons pulled the GOP away from this traditional understanding of conservatism, they created room for the long-established conservative grassroots (these people know how to gather on a weekly basis and organize things, 'cause most of them are active in churches and other local organizations) to express their voice through other outlets.
OK, so Bush isn’t a true conservative… But then, by that argument, neither is the Tea Party. If they’re trying to take their party back from the likes of Bush, then why didn’t they start while Bush was actually in office?
Here is why I don’t agree with that:
- The age of small donations is recent, with Obama pretty much pioneering using millions of $20-100 donations to build a movement.
- The GOP and dems get big donations from groups. It isn’t one party getting it vs the other. The dems have labor unions, the GOP have corporations. Both sides have wealthy individuals who fund them (Koch brothers, Coors foundation, Soros, Democracy Alliance, etc)
- Plutocrats are the fundamental constituent of the GOP. That is why all their economic policies are plutocratic. The GOP do not have economic policies that benefit the tea baggers. All the GOP economic policies harm the tea baggers and benefit the plutocrats. How does abolishing social security and medicare and using that money to fund tax cuts on the wealthiest 1% help a 63 year old tea party member who makes 40k a year?
- The tea party never lifted a finger when Bush was engaging in these abuses. Neither did the official GOP. Why didn’t the tea party get upset when Bush violated conservative principals?
- The current GOP is becoming more and more radical. How conservative does it need to be?
Clinton was a black Democrat?
And if not, why are these “same sort of people” behaving the same way now as they did before under a white president? Your claim disproves its own point.
The fact of the matter is that the Tea Partiers and many conservatives dislike the fact that an arrogant, willful congress and its complicit president are taking actions that directly fly in the face of what the country’s votership wants. If you’ll recall, none other than Nancy Pelosi herself felt compelled to urge members of the House to be ‘courageous’ and vote in opposition to the people’s will on the health care bill even if it cost them their jobs.
As DJ Motorbike said, the government has grown beyond the consent of the governed, but we can still kick the bastards out. And if we do, it will have very little if anything to do with the fact that the president is black. :rolleyes:
Actions that they promised to take, promises that comprise their agenda, as offered to the people. Which voted for them, and presumably, their agenda. Obama certainly ran on a platform of health care reform. Seems to me, he won, or else this is very VERY good news for the McCain Campaign, who seem to be under the impression that they lost.
But, the people’s will was not against it. At least half the opposition to the bill was from people who felt it did not go far enough. We went over this many times during the healthcare debate.
Because that’s one of their defining qualities. Wherever people try to push for a better life, for greater justice, for more rights the conservatives are there to oppose them. They are the ones who fight to keep slaves, to oppress women, to maintain segregation, to impose religion by force, to brutalize gays, to oppress and exploit the Jews/Irish/Mexicans/whatever.
Why should I accept a definition of conservatism that as far as I can tell doesn’t apply to much of anyone who calls himself a conservative in this country? American conservatives aren’t interested in conserving much of anything; they want radical change, their way.
Please. Your “traditional conservatism” hasn’t really existed for many decades. Nor are the teabaggers any different, except for being even stupider than usual.