• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Conservative Case Against Dubya

Status
Not open for further replies.

Triumph

Banned
Theodore Roosevelt, that most virile of presidents, insisted that, "To announce that there should be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American people."

Teddy Roosevelt would have beaten George W. out of the White House with a board and smashed him in his lying, treacherous face for what he's done. This is TRUE, folks.
 
_BLESSED ARE THE MEEK: OLIMARIO IN LOVE_
By: Raoul "Triumph" Duke

(C) 2004 GAF Publishing

A hefty tome chronicling the laissez-faire lifestyle of GAF's most popular chronically naive Nintendo fanboy as he goes from fat spoiled rich kid with little intellectual curiosity to skinny spoiled rich kid with little intellectual curiosity and an overweening desire to validate himself pictorially on web forums. This book chronicles Gary's misadventures in love, from his halcyon days of coyly seducing the Hispanic help with an overflowing bathtub to his incestuous summer daydreams to his current teenaged infatuation with a ten-named girl he so quaintly dubs his "best friend". If this book's refreshingly Forrest Gump take on Victorian love doesn't make you as giddy as a swishy Nintendo fan first discovering the charms of Animal Crossing, you're probably as heartless and jaded as Drinky Crow!

I'm sold!
 
TR was a populist conservative who would have shot you in the face for even suggesting such apologistic pap as "trickle-down economics".
 
But, but, but Abraham Lincoln freed the blacks. AND he was a republican!!! Therefore republicans love blacks!!! Why can't these libruls learn about our foundering fathers?
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Drinky Crow said:
TR was a populist conservative who would have shot you in the face for even suggesting such apologistic pap as "trickle-down economics".
Actually, wasn't TR part of the original "progressive" movement?
 
Yeah, but he'd be a conservative in modern terms. He wanted limited government, closed borders, and state's rights (before the current definition of "state's rights" to mean HANG ALL DEM BLACKS N GAYS).
 

Pimpwerx

Member
But since the Korean War (which the Congress defined as a "police action" to avoid using its war powers), war has been waged without its formal declaration. Thus Congressional power atrophies in the face of flag-waving presidents. Perhaps Congress is too preoccupied with swilling from the gravy trough that our politics has become to recall its Constitutional role as a co-equal branch of government, guarding its powers and privileges against executive usurpation. The Congress has forgotten that the men who exacted Magna Carta from King John at sword point instituted Parliament to restrain the executive from its natural tendency to tax, spend and war.

Moreover, there is nothing conservative about war. As Madison wrote:

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. [There is an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and…degeneracy of manners and of morals…No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

By contrast, business, commerce and trade, founded on private property, created by individual initiative, families and communities, has done far more to move the world forward than war. Yet faith in military force and an arrogant belief that American values are universal values still mold our foreign policy nearly a century after Woodrow Wilson, reelected with a promise

See, people say they're Dem/Rep or lib/con, but there's so much grey. I believe in a lot of conservative ideals along with my socialist ideals. The author of this piece makes sense, period. Fiscal responsibility has been replaced with war-mongering and corporate handouts. And the Congress is cowtowing to all of it b/c they are benefiting directly. The failure takes place all throughout our government. All three branches have failed us. Don't even get me started on the Supreme Court which is just as partisan as the other two branches. The government needs an overhaul. But unlike this author, I don't believe the founding fathers had enough foresight to see all the potential pitfalls of this government they created.

First, that is a two-edged sword: If the crimes of a foreign government against its people justify our invasion, there will be no end of fighting. Second, the pre-war assertions were dishonest: Having decided that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, the policymakers suppressed all evidence that it did not. This immorality is thrown in high relief by the war's effect on Iraqi civilians. We have no serious evidence of any connection between Iraq and 9/11. Dropping 5000-pound bombs on thousands of people who had nothing to do with attacking us is as immoral as launching airplanes at an American office building.

That brings a tear to my eye. That's the antiwar stance many of us had last year. Good to see it wasn't just us crazy "liberal doves" who felt this way.

George W. Bush claims to be conservative. But based upon the unwholesome intrusion into domestic life and personal liberty of his administration and the local governments who imitate it, George W. Bush is no conservative, no friend of limited, constitutional government—and no friend of freedom. The Republic would be better served by his defeat in November.

Amen to everything but the last sentence. I feel this country would be better off without the Republic, period. In this age of communication, we don't need these overpaid, underperforming middle-men in Congress to represent us. Move to a popular vote system. Congressmen only serve to take power from the people and give it to the highest bidder. PEACE.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Amen to everything but the last sentence. I feel this country would be better off without the Republic, period. In this age of communication, we don't need these overpaid, underperforming middle-men in Congress to represent us. Move to a popular vote system. Congressmen only serve to take power from the people and give it to the highest bidder. PEACE.
If that day comes, minority rights are out the fucking window. :p
 

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
A popular vote system would be the scariest thing ever. If you thought this country was bad now...
 

Pimpwerx

Member
Dan/Hito: In retrospect...I think I have to agree. ;) Maybe keep the Republic, but we need some serious campaign finance reform. Something to kick lobbyists out of DC and restore control to the people. But you're right, a popular vote could have some really, REALLY scary results. PEACE.
 

FightyF

Banned
I'm a conservative, and anyone reading my posts know that I am disgusted with Bush and Friends (tm).

On the other hand, I'm Canadian. Our definition of conservatism doesn't include tolerance of hate and racism, which is what I see in the US quite a bit. It's starting to get that way in Canada, but it's still considered "fringe" and isn't as accepted.
 

Gruco

Banned
Drinky Crow said:
Yeah, but he'd be a conservative in modern terms. He wanted limited government, closed borders, and state's rights (before the current definition of "state's rights" to mean HANG ALL DEM BLACKS N GAYS).
I dunno, the guy was anti corporate power and pro environment. I don't really see small government is part of the "modern term" for conservative anyways.
 

AntoneM

Member
Fight for Freeform said:
I'm a conservative, and anyone reading my posts know that I am disgusted with Bush and Friends (tm).

On the other hand, I'm Canadian. Our definition of conservatism doesn't include tolerance of hate and racism, which is what I see in the US quite a bit. It's starting to get that way in Canada, but it's still considered "fringe" and isn't as accepted.

well, isn't Canada just perfect. I bet your streets are paved with gold and every afternoon everyone gets off work early so they can frolick in the prarie flowers.
 

GG-Duo

Member
max_cool said:
well, isn't Canada just perfect. I bet your streets are paved with gold and every afternoon everyone gets off work early so they can frolick in the prarie flowers.

Why, yes.

You guys don't have that?
 
About an Oli - The lovely sequel to Olimario in Love, which chronicles Olimario's dealing with loss. Specifically the loss of his girlfriend to the Texas A&M football squad after an "accidental" encounter in the locker room after they posted a win over Baylor.

I've got dibs on that story.
 

FightyF

Banned
well, isn't Canada just perfect. I bet your streets are paved with gold and every afternoon everyone gets off work early so they can frolick in the prarie flowers.

I don't know how you got that impression *shrugs shoulders*

I even implied that it wasn't perfect, because I said that hate and racism does exist (in political parties as well as public life), but it's still quite fringe and frowned upon. Republicans and their supporters can make hateful comments with little repercussions (some exceptions exist, thankfully), whereas in Canada the CPC could not get away with such things.
 

Azih

Member
yeah as soon as anybody in the CPC went "I don't think gays should marry" the party took a dive at the polls. The center is just in a different place in Canada as compared to the states.
 

Shinobi

Member
I consider myself conservative as well for the most part, but I wouldn't vote Republican if a gun was held in my mouth. Luckily that won't be an issue...unless Canada sells it's ass to the US (and I wouldn't bet against that occurring).
 
Drinky Crow said:
Yeah, but he'd be a conservative in modern terms. He wanted limited government, closed borders, and state's rights (before the current definition of "state's rights" to mean HANG ALL DEM BLACKS N GAYS).

Um, are you smoking crack? He expanded the executive branch enormously. He created the National Park Service (damn hippy), passed the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 which regulated the hell out of the food industry, and broke up the Trusts with the federal government.
 
That was a dang good article. It did a really good job of showing how people like Bush and his cronies have taken 'conservative' and given it a whole new meaning. I have said it all along I am cool with conservatives and liberals as they both generally want similar things, they just seek to accomplish them in different time frames and different ways. George W. Bush is neither of those and has become such an extremist that almost NO ONE is served by his policies. People need to wake up and realize that these extremists in disguise are not truly conservatives or liberals, but terrorists attempting to truly take away our freedoms by punishing dissenting opinion and views.
 

ge-man

Member
Shinobi said:
I consider myself conservative as well for the most part, but I wouldn't vote Republican if a gun was held in my mouth. Luckily that won't be an issue...unless Canada sells it's ass to the US (and I wouldn't bet against that occurring).

I think people should no longer equate liberal and conservative with democrat and republican. As Azih mentioned, America's center is different from the west of the world. On top of that, the labels simplify the degrees in which a person lean politically. I'm a registered democrat, but I'm more progressive on certain social issues than other dems while at the same time I'm more conservative on certain issues of economics and the government's size. It always disappointing to see parties treated like monolithic groups or to use the labels like swear words--it's unfair to individuals who can think to themselves.

Anyway, I hope more articles like this are published. It helps destroy the assumption that you have to be a part of the party group think.
 

Shinobi

Member
I agree wholeheartedly, which is why I always wanted to keep away from the whole left/right, Democrat/Republican shit slinging nonsense that the Iraq war discussions invariably generated. It's simply not relevant. The Liberals up here are deemed left wing, but they're more left of center then anything else (NDP is the true left wing party). The New Conservatives seem to have a mixture of right center and right wing members, though I reckon only a handful of the latter group are as extreme as many of the Republicans appear to be.

It's also sad that people who never had any use for the Iraq war were being called pacifists or anti-war people, when that wasn't accurate either. I'm all for war, as long as it's legitimate and there's no other alternative. The Iraq conflict failed on every single count you could think of, and then some.

Hell, Afghanistan seems like a bullshit war as well in hindsight, but at the time I supported it, as did the majority of people around the world (something Bush fanatics seem to forget). Even with my doubts about that initial conflict, I can at least understand why it was neccessary. Too bad the allied forces moved on before the prime objective was reached.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom