What Good Exists In The Right-Wing?

I like Bill Clinton. Too bad he couldn't control his libido and set a better example while he was in the White House!

Unlike Clinton, Barack Obama is rapidly losing his liberal supporters and his progressive base.

It seems as if Obama cannot please anyone or any group these days.

Many of his ardent supporters from the last election have come to the basic conclusion he is not proficient and he is not deserving of the high office he now commands.

Does he lack leadership abilities or competence? Is he arrogant and out of touch with America? Is he a pleaser first and foremost, rather than someone who cares about getting the job done? Does he not understand how the economy works? “‘Yes, we can!’ has devolved into ‘Hey, we might,’” Maureen Dowd wrote in The New York Times."

Said one once ardent Obama supporter: “I’m fed up with the president’s inability to stick up for the lofty goals he once articulated", when he was running for office.

 

Where the hell does anybody get off thinking that being fiscally conservative is something unique to the "right". Such an asinine premise.

Anybody who thinks saving money and spending prudently is a fiscal conservative... ANYBODY!! I dont give a rats ass if your transexual divorcee who attends services at the scientology mothership.. if this person saves and spends prudently .. he is a fiscal conservative.

I am a fiscal conservative... please dont insult me by lumping me into the rightwing mob because you try to claim that virtue as strictly "rightwing".

It is a false premise.

(PS. I am not a transexual divorcee that attends services at the sceintology mothership)

I am an independent .. and i do believe that the Koch Bros. have a negative influence on politics through lobbying and bribes.. I dont think they actually care about the label attached to the politician.. as long as he will dance when payed to do so.

 

Conservatives are more likely to serve in the military...what greater act of
loyalty is there? than to be willing to sacrifice your life to defend and support the
Constitution.

 

Very good, signcutter.

Most "conservatives" I know are conservative on some issues and liberal on other issues. I am a centrist and an independent. Consequently, I too am a fiscal conservative but I support gay rights issues and a woman's right to choose.

I sincerely believe strictly religious views should be left out of politics.

Unfortunately, most if not all of the liberals in this group apply the “cookie cutter” concept to a person’s politics. You are either a misguided “conservative” or an enlightened “liberal” when it comes to any and all issues!




Many Democrats are debt addicts and just don't know when to stop spending! With the Federal debt of $14.3 trillion amounting to $185,000 for every family of four, at some point we have to concede that the federal checkbook has its limits. Cuts in spending are only a start, other programs need to be abolished or radically changed. ... The old guard Democrats and old guard Republicans have been in Congress far too long. They are too beholden to special interest groups to have the good of average, typical Americans in mind.

 

Hey, now. Cheerios rock.

Say what you want about liberalism. But don't dis my breakfast.

 

Well, this thread has gone 205 posts; through January 2nd of this year and picked up again yesterday. And what do we learn Dorthy?

The OP asked this question: "what has the right-wing done that can be measured - tangibly - that has proved to a benefit to the people of the US that makes life easier - in any way" http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...-what-good-exists-right-wing.html#post3345498 - and the answer; as predicted, has been a resounding zero, nadda, zipp-ideedoodah, nothing.

The right-wing reactions have been to vilify the OP and its poster (me). To try and put the OP on the defensive by attempting to repudiate the subject matter; without success, but rather by ad-homenim and avoidance of the issue under discussion. Therefore, what we find about the right-wing, is that they are useless. They have nothing to contribute to the wefare; socially or politically, to the United States. One such alleged representaive for instance is Michelle Bachman. We find in question answer appreances, the very same phenomenon that has happend in this thread: Michelle Bacman will not answer direct questions becasue - when she - jumps on the stump is because she's not out to answer any questions; she's out to make a speech and hammer the same old fallacies into the media. That's it - full stop.

Thanks right-wingers; you've done real well.

 

The Soviet economy was stagnating long before Reagan took power. That "prosperity" you speak of resulted in the collapse of '08. Since Reagan took power wages for the middle class have on average flatlined, or many cases declined.

 

That's the result of this perfectly natural, unstoppable force of economics called Globalization. You can either get on the bandwagon, or get run over by it, but the wagon can't be stopped.

I'm so sick of hearing people whine about the middle class as if being a member is some human right to be granted by the Government. Being in the middle class is a privilege one earns through hard work and education, not societal fiat.

 

The wealthy and educated Right-Wingers are pretty cool, but they are the old school Republican's. The people on this forum and the Tea Party in general, have nothing good that exists.

 

This is the good in the Right. Each time in the USA they show us the good in the right by choosing someone evern more crackpot than the one that went before...so much that the oldies look like radicals in comparison.

The other day I was telling a fellow liberal that Reagan was a good guy, an internationalist at heart who just over extended his enthusiasm into central America, but on the whole a decent a civilized fellow compared to the demons that the Right are threatening to impose now.

That's how it works. GWB. I mean I always thought he was a funny guy. He always put himself down. I liked him. I can imagine he used to be a good guy to have a beer with.

That's how they get you.

Clever eh?

 

Yes you have to look at the intelectual bankruptcy of the Right on this. they don't argue that socialism was an utter failure of a system that held the seeds of its own destruction. They don't argue that a centrally planned economy is doomed to failure. They argue that one man defeated the evil empire single handedly.

So full of sh.... it's Star Wars to them. Cowboys and injuns. Yeeeeee hah.

 

You can't even get your own thread premise right; it stated "What Good Exists In The Right-Wing?"

It's nothing more than a troll thread intended to elicit the responses you have received and now you come on and whine about it. How truly pathetic does someone has to be to post such idiotic nonsense then whine about the responses.

There is no "right wing" that you like to rant incoherently about; there is a conservative view and it occurs on both sides of the political aisle, Democrat and Republican.

It rejects the notion of a massive Governmental nanny state that Obama envisions and it rejects the notion that politicians pandering to ignorant voters like you should be the "deciders" of who the winners and losers should be in the economy and our personal lives.

It rejects the notion that politicians have the right to steal the wealth others have earned and redistribute it to those who would vote for them.

I suggest to all who have the same idiotic convoluted irrational beliefs that you do to read the Constitution some time and comprehend what Conservative means.

History is littered with the "good intentioned" failures of Liberal ideology. It’s time for you and your fellow Liberals to start growing up, quit expecting everyone else to pay for your mistakes and grow a pair of balls.

 

You left out, "because you say so."

But without these Tea Party members in congress, we would have had more fiscal irresponsibility on the part of Democrats in the Senate and White House who want to continue the blank check insane spending spree they have been on for four years.

 

Intellectual bankruptcy comes from dolts who parrot Liberal talking points in a vacuum of the facts, truth and reality.

Intellectual bankruptcy begins with the idiot premise that BIG Government is the solution to all our social ills and can solve our economic problems.

Intellectual bankruptcy begins with morons who vote for politicians who promise them something for nothing.

Intellectual bankruptcy begins with morons who keep electing the politicians who pander to their ignorance promising them something for nothing then never coming through on their promises.

I have to laugh when the idiots on the left think that their intellect somehow trumps even the simplest American who says we are Taxed Enough Already. Only complete and utter morons enamored by their own arrogance can think that this statement is somehow the realm of the intellectually bankrupted.

Liberals who want to see what "Intellectually bankrupt" only need to look as far as their mirrors.

But alas, you are from Europe, a land that wallows in intellectual bankruptcy and where the citizens have been brainwashed into thinking they get healthcare for nothing and that waiting months for care is the result of others needing that care more than they do.

 

You are very correct, Truth Detector.

Especially when you say, "Intellectual bankruptcy comes from dolts who parrot Liberal talking points in a vacuum of the facts, truth and reality."

Check this out!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHgH5i8ug6E"]Obama: I Give uh Good um Speech - YouTube[/ame]

 

So, you admit that you can't answer the question either.

that's what I thought

 

It has been answered, but in typical fashion you continue to ignore what is being said and parrot the idiot talking points of the DNC.

Carry on; thinking for yourself and having a clue are not your forte'.

 

I think the main damage Reagan did was being a pragmatic center-rightist in practice during a lucky time in the economic cycle while spouting ridiculous right-wing rhetoric.
It wasn't his governance.
It's the way the results were credited to the wrong policies and the wrong ideas.

As for GWB, I think he meant well in a way I could agree with philosophically even if not policy-wise. I can't say the same for Michelle Bachmann.
He did have some policies that meant well by liberal and moderate standards: Faith-based charities had some issues, but it was about helping people in need. NCLB was horribly flawed but it was for a good liberal cause: helping out students in crappy schools, and it wasn't another privatization scheme.
Even his attempt to privatize Social Security kept a strong safety net (which was probably unsustainable, given the structure of the program-- much like "high risk pools" in health insurance) for the poor.

These nutcases today...
Bachmann and Paul are delusional, each in his/her own way. They are more worried about saving the soul of America than taking its actual problems seriously.
Romney and Perry are political opportunists who both seem more concerned with their names than any genuine desire to do good.

 

So go ahead; thrall us: answer it.

 

This is the second post of yours in this section that doesn't answer anything. What you're doing is exactly what I've said about the right-wing all along: you avoid answering and vilify the question with a lot of BS about talking points etc. Michelle Bachman must be your sister.

Look, it's a very direct and easy question to answer: what good has the right-wing done for America that can be measured?

Now, answer the question. You're an "American", you're a "right-winger"; answer it.

 

It's pretty easy...

You agree with a collectivist nanny state government.

Me being a conservative libertarian... I believe in a independent society and individual responsibility.

You want government to solve your problems... I think government is the problem.

You aren't going to concede to any points we make.

 

Technically....they're people too? There might still be some left that actually ARE people?

 

This is just trite superficial garbage isn't it. It's this kind of bollocks that stops people having sensible discussion around here. It's a "I'm defining politics as two extreme poles with nothing in the middle" kind of bollocks. In fact liberalism is about having liberty and freedom in politics and in business where the government plays a certain defined role.

This government role is rooted in eighteenth century philosophy such as Rousseau's "social contract" which underpins the American Revolution and the warning of Adam Smith that governments needed to regulate markets against capitalists who would collude to disrupt the freedom of the market through cartel or monopoly.

Debates never used to be about doomsday poles and extremes, as they now are, but about where to draw the fine lines governed by rational judgement that balanced the necessary check and balance between the freedom of the individual and the benefits of society (the benefits of society being a specific goal of the Founding Fathers who were certainly no anarchists like some on today's Right).

But now, largely due to the dumbed down morons who insist on joing this debate, all we have is vacuity and slogan. There is little substance to political discussion anymore. Just empty, meaningless prescriptions like the one I quote above.

 

The good side of conservatism involves ambition, personal responsibility, and, for lack of a better word.... balls.

The sometimes overly optimistic view that conservatives take on their own potential for success in business is important for a society to have to a certain degree to inspire innovation.

The individualism and personal responsibility that embodies much of conservatism is a good thing when it encourages people to live off of the system as little as possible.

The "balls" aspect is more complicated, however. From an outsider's point of view, it seems to me that many Europeans put a little too much faith in authorities when it comes to personal defense. While gun control is possible to successfully implement in many countries, there are plenty of examples of why guns aren't the problem so much as certain cultural issues are when it comes to violent crime.

The U.K. has plenty of violent crime in its own right despite having few gun owners among the population. Meanwhile, Switzerland has a rather high gun ownership percentage with a very low violent crime rate.

It seems like certain European countries that have to deal with more crime don't have the necessary "balls" that comes with conservatism here. Laws seem to go too far in protecting criminals vs. allowing individuals to defend themselves.

 

Complete drivel. What you are describing is modern day libertarianism.

The definition of liberty is nothing close to today liberals.

As been debated numerous times on this forum... there is no such thing as societal freedom... only individual freedom. In order to achieve any sort of societal freedom, it takes authoritarian policies.

Then answer the question in the OP. If you and your cronies aren't going to accept any answer... tell us what would be an acceptable answer. You can't tell me there isn't any good in the right wing. You just can't tell me that with a serious face.

If you can't, you are an extreme bigot.