False conceptions about conservatives

False conceptions about conservatives
  • 839
  • 122
  • 12

My Recent Posts

The most common gripe I hear from liberals/Democrats regarding conservatives/Republicans is disagreement with our stance on social issues.  The problem is that most of what they have been led to believe by the media and their Party elites is false.  Correct me if I’m wrong, but the liberal main-stream media would like everyone to believe that conservatives are against gay marriage, abortion and generally side with the Evangelical wing of the Republican Party.  All of that is false.

 

Take the election of Donald Trump.  Between his many ex-wives and being a billionaire New Yorker, he’s clearly no middle-America evangelical.  Yet in the primary he took down Ted Cruz, the son of a pastor. 

 

Liberal elites would like everyone to believe that conservatives are against gay marriage.  As recently as 2010 Obama was against gay marriage.  Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act confirming marriage to be between a man and a woman.  Vice President Dick Cheney has an openly gay daughter.  Despite these facts, all this anti-gay marriage rhetoric is always pinned on the backs of Republicans.  I would argue the two parties are for gay marriage with the only caveat that Republicans don’t think it’s right for a cake maker to be forced to make a cake for a gay wedding if he’s religiously opposed to gay marriage.   

 

On the subject of abortion, Republicans are not interested in passing legislation that would overturn Roe v Wade otherwise they would attempt to do so now.  After all, if this were our signature issue, there will likely be no better opportunity than right now.  Where we differ from liberals is on the subject of late-term abortions and how late is too late.  The recent story now-jailed abortion Doctor who was severing the spines of aborted “babies” to make sure they were dead, barely made it on any of the main-stream media networks.  This is a healthy debate to have.  

 

The fact of the matter is that it’s far more helpful for liberals to paint Republicans as crazed religious fanatics, which is why they like to bring up gay marriage and abortion whenever possible.  As a flesh and blood Republican and conservative, let me assure you that I don’t care two shits about gay marriage and abortion.  My signature concern is economic matters.  Specifically, I want poor people to climb the income ladder and become productive members of society.  Liberals seem perfectly happy having the taxpayers provide for them, as once firmly attached to the teat of the state they become loyal liberal voters.

Comments

Billy Roper Added Mar 27, 2017 - 10:58am
People need to stop worrying about what liberals think, or how they define them. All we will have to do to win is breathe in, let half of the breath out slowly, and squeeze.
Nexist Xenda'ths Added Mar 27, 2017 - 11:29am
Did you see the study done by Jesse Graham, Brian A. Nosek, & Jonathan Haidt?
 
From the Righteous Mind (cited by The Independent Whig):
The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as “very liberal.” The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives. When faced with questions such as “One of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal” or ”Justice is the most important requirement for a society,” liberals assumed that conservatives would disagree.
 
The leading sentences for the paragraphs explaining the conclusions summarize as:
3a. Conservatives were most accurate about the individual-focused moral concerns of either side, and liberals were least accurate.
3b. Moderates were most accurate about the group-focused moral concerns of either side, and liberals were least accurate.
3c. Liberals exaggerate moral differences the most.
 
As you can see, the upshot is that Moderates and Conservatives have a more accurate picture of Liberals and what they believe. Liberals see only a caricature. This isn't really surprising given the general social climate. Given the social and economic repercussions for espousing conservative views, most conservatives are decidedly low key when interacting at the work place. While Conservatives and Moderates see normal Liberals on a daily basis, Liberals primary exposure to Conservative views are via bombastic personalities and "extremists".
Bill Caciene Added Mar 27, 2017 - 11:30am
In light of the fact liberals can Filibuster Republicans efforts to improve things and won the popular vote for president, their opinion matters greatly.
Bill Caciene Added Mar 27, 2017 - 11:43am
Nexist
Interesting study. I wonder how conservatives make our case and show liberals that we aren’t the caricature the main-stream media makes us out to be? I sure hope images of rioting liberals versus Tea Party activists having peaceful rallies, will eventually resonant and convince more liberals to search for the truth about us. I suppose the 2016 election might be evidence the tide is turning, but the fact Hillary won the popular vote is a huge concern. Sadly, I don’t think it will take much to turn things blue in 2018.
William Stockton Added Mar 27, 2017 - 11:43am
Thumbs up Bill
Lady Sekhmetnakt Added Mar 27, 2017 - 12:07pm
Same kinds of misconceptions about us liberals are rampant Bill. If you don't believe me just read Michael's current article. As for myself I know conservatives and liberals who do fit those stereotypes but they are the minority and I do realize that. Decent article. 
Nexist Xenda'ths Added Mar 27, 2017 - 12:21pm
Bill: To be honest, it is unlikely. Punitive measures enacted on those espousing non-Liberal views will inhibit people from expressing those views (as it is meant to do). The tendency to (mis)label any perceived deviance as fascist or racist still has a chilling effect -- and it definitely impairs your rank and file liberal from hearing what is said. Liberals dominate the narrative and all of the "fake news" hooplah seems to be aimed at consolidating their control -- notice that it is not the fake news stories supporting the Liberal narrative that are being targeted. Do MSNBC's stories get put into "restricted mode" on YouTube? No, even though they are often misleading and partisan. Liberals are the "power" and they, as have other totalitarian ideologies of the past, seek to crush those who "speak truth to power" (truth being colloquially used in this sense).
 
Lady Sekhmetnakt Added Mar 27, 2017 - 12:36pm
MSNBC doesn't deserve to be called liberal. They are complete neoliberal fake news Russophobic trash. 
Jeff Jackson Added Mar 27, 2017 - 1:08pm
Gosh Bill, you mean that journalists are taking ideology over the truth and making statements that aren't true because they want to further someone's agenda, like the Clinton Syndicate? Say it isn't so. I am shocked, shocked to know that the people that we trust to tell us the truth are more interested in indoctrinating us into following their agenda. As I have said, perhaps there should be a "journalist" credential that those who tell the truth could have after their name, as in "Bruce Wayne, CJ" meaning he is a Certified Journalist. Of course, the journalists would corrupt this credentialing within a short period of time.  It isn't news anymore, there aren't any journalistic ethics anymore. I'm not crying in my beer over it, but it is disappointing, to say the least. 
Thomas Sutrina Added Mar 27, 2017 - 1:09pm
Thumbs up.  Another look at the separation comes from Moral Foundation Theory.  Wikipedia has a good article.  Liberals only are interested in Care and Fairness that can be called also proportionality.  Conservatives are interested in all six foundations but concentrate on the four that liberals ignore: Liberty, Loyalty that can be called ingroup, authority or called respect, tradition, and sanctity or purity and oppose to disgrace  
 
The six moral foundations are central part of religion, including jeudo-christian foundation of America.  It can be seen in the last sentence of the Declaration of Independence stating the position of the signers.  They were identifying themselves as traitors to the crown.  Those that were captured suffered the punishment of a traitor.
Thomas Sutrina Added Mar 27, 2017 - 1:26pm
The abortion issue when viewed from the six moral foundations and Christian and other religious theology place the definition of being human to the "stirring of a baby in the womb."   Glenn Beck has quoted the founders of America stating this Christian understanding of the beginning of a human life.  
 
The court decisions of Roe vs Way which include two other court cases I believe 95% assured, state that the woman has total control of her body and the child during the first three months (I believe this is before 'stirring' occurs).  The state has rights there after.  A baby is human with all the rights as any other human at the point that it can survive with assistance out side the womb.   A baby  lived being born at 22 weeks.  
 
The laws in many states have put weasel words to weaken this supreme court ruling and do not enforce the law.  This is not new since the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment passed in the 1870's were not enforced until the 1960's civil right bills.  The example of the abortion doctor in Pennsylvania on court records show that the health department did not enforce the laws in abortion clinics on sanitation.  While those same department enforce the law at restaurants.  
Bill Caciene Added Mar 27, 2017 - 1:36pm
Jennifer
I have no love for those that delete comments, so I’ll be ignoring your comments.
 
Nexist
Now that Trump is control of the IRS, those the punitive measures towards non-liberal speech will have far less bite.  I believe the more they cry “racist” the more they sound like the boy who cried wolf.  The moderates and some non-far-left liberals are starting to recognize their ridiculous cries of racism and will warm to conservatism.  As if outrage over illegal immigration means we’re racist.  My point is that I wouldn’t have such a defeatist attitude.  Just look at the political landscape, our ideology is winning. 
 
Jeff
I disagree.  There are many good and honorable journalists and news outlets.  To the extent you choose one that isn’t, you only have yourself to blame.  I’d start by eliminating all the ones that have suggested Trump is a racist. 
 
Thomas
My apologies but I don’t know what you’re talking about in your first comment.  Look, this topic doesn’t need to get any more complicated or intellectual.  In order to win elections liberals have successfully painted Republicans as bible-thumpers. I’m certainly not, in fact, I don’t know any conservatives that are. 
 
As it relates to your second comment, perhaps abortion clinic sanitation needs to be addressed, the larger issue is over the amount of time after getting pregnant a woman can legally have an abortion. 
Lady Sekhmetnakt Added Mar 27, 2017 - 1:47pm
Screw you Bill, you are one of the conservatives that prove the stereotypes true. Good riddance. 
Bill Caciene Added Mar 27, 2017 - 3:33pm
Very happy to be the type of conservative that defends free speech and rejects censorship.  
Paul K. Added Mar 27, 2017 - 4:09pm
Hi Folks, I have read some of your comments and opinions, and eventually gave up.
From where I sit in little old New Zealand I see this:
You had an election....Good oh!
Both Parties put forward a Candidate; suitably vetted by your team and considered ok to represent your policies and aspirations.
Sorry guys I am being molested by my Dog - late for his walkie, so I need to keep this short.
As I said your Parties put your best Bloke or Girl forward!
Are you Nuts?
How in Hell did you agree to TRUMP?
Did you check any of his proposed benefits he proposed to enhance Life in the USA better than the Opposition.
We need to assume that you have, as you did not stop him.
Since when does any Government  maintain a lot of Diplomats and
SME's only to ignore them and pass decrees down via TWEETS? 
Tell me how many Americans have the certainty to get healtcare now? 
We are only a small Country here but I can tell you that an abortion like TRUMP would not make it here. 
Are you Guys nuts? 
Alternative Truth? 
Mexican Wall?
Pipeline ?
Tax Credits?
Where in hell is your Backbone?
 
There you go, I had my rant! I have done business with a few Americans and have the greatest respect for every one of them.
Just so you know!
PWK
Bill Caciene Added Mar 27, 2017 - 4:35pm
Paul
Your comment has absolutely nothing to do with my article.  If you want to to chat about Trump, you should write an article of your own.
Nexist Xenda'ths Added Mar 27, 2017 - 4:52pm
Bill: To my mind, the IRS is the least of the punitive measures. When having a contrary opinion can impair one's ability to work and provide for one's family, why worry about the IRS. That is the point of the SJW "doxing" etc. The social "peer" pressure is far more damning since we are social animals. Perhaps it will lead to further segregation of the US as people move to more accepting regions in order to find work, but that would be a long term reaction, probably something my children's children would have to deal with.
Nexist Xenda'ths Added Mar 27, 2017 - 4:58pm
Jenifer: I am using colloquial definitions of the terms "liberal" and "conservative". While I am aware of the differences between neoliberal, liberal, neocon, paleocon, alt-right, communist, socialist, corporatist, fascist, national socialist, maoist, et al. That level of specificity becomes tiring in an article comment thread.

Also, there are relations. Paul Hill and Pope Francis belong to different Christian traditions, but are still both Christian. The differences are primarily important to believers, not their opposition.

If it upsets you that the shoe pinches, don't wear it.
J. Riddle Added Mar 27, 2017 - 5:00pm
"Correct me if I’m wrong, but the liberal main-stream media"
 
You're wrong about that. The "main-stream media" are many things but "liberal" ain't one of 'em.
 
"would like everyone to believe that conservatives are against gay marriage, abortion and generally side with the Evangelical wing of the Republican Party.  All of that is false."
 
In June 2016, the CBS News poll asked, "Do you think it should be legal or not legal for same-sex couples to marry?" 52% of Republicans chose "not legal," with only 38% choosing "legal." That's progress, to be sure, but the "mainstream" Republican position is still against it. On abortion, Repubs are indeed divided. The CBS News poll in January asked about it and only 19% of Repubs said abortion should be generally available. 42% said it should be available but more tightly restricted, while 37% said it shouldn't be permitted at all (and I picked these polls because they were the most recent I found that had a party breakdown--necessary, as ideological self-identification polling is worthless). The Republican platform is against both gay marriage and abortion--the anti-abortion view it adopts is redundant-on-redundant.
 
"Take the election of Donald Trump.  Between his many ex-wives and being a billionaire New Yorker, he’s clearly no middle-America evangelical.  Yet in the primary he took down Ted Cruz, the son of a pastor."
 
Over 80% of white evangelicals voted for Trump. It's not a misrepresentation to say he's their boy.
 
"Liberal elites would like everyone to believe that conservatives are against gay marriage."
 
As already covered, most of them are. That's not a trick of some liberal elite; rightists routinely compare gay marriage to pedophilia and bestiality.
 
"Despite these facts, all this anti-gay marriage rhetoric is always pinned on the backs of Republicans."
 
That's because they're the ones offering "all that anti-gay marriage rhetoric." During the presidential campaign, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and Bobby Jindal actually attended the National Religious Liberties Conference, whose organizer (Kevin Swanson) openly calls for the murder of homosexuals. The press refused to tell the public about that one (as usual) but if I need to start hauling out examples, they will be legion. Anyone who pays any more than minimal attention will know plenty.
 
"On the subject of abortion, Republicans are not interested in passing legislation that would overturn Roe v Wade otherwise they would attempt to do so now."
 
They call for packing the Supreme Court with justices who will overturn Roe; every major Repub presidential candidate for the last few decades has, including Trump. The only way the Repub platform could be more extreme on this issue is if it openly called for the execution of abortion providers, and, in fact, Repub legislators in multiple states have introduced bills that would legalize that very thing.
 
"As a flesh and blood Republican and conservative, let me assure you that I don’t care two shits about gay marriage and abortion."
 
That's nice but in that, you don't represent that party.
Shane Dean Added Mar 27, 2017 - 5:55pm
Thank you for dropping this, Bill.  While I identify as conservative in most of my political leanings, I think I define that term differently than some.  I never let my feeling about religion affect who I vote for, unless they choose to make a big issue of theirs and how other people should practice faith like them.  Also, many people think conservative means going backward, where technically it means not a fan of sweeping change.  But that doesn't sell papers or buy votes, so you won't hear about that kind of conservative.
Lady Sekhmetnakt Added Mar 27, 2017 - 5:57pm
Hey Bill, I thought you were ignoring my comments. Sure doesn't look like it. Just more lies like the fake news that got your comments deleted on one of my articles. I made the rules simple enough even a conservative could understand them but you still violated them repeatedly until I had no choice but to enforce the rules to maintain order. But you are the kind who embraces, chaos, fake news and lies. That is the actual kind of conservative you are and we both know it. Now are you going to actually ignore me like you said, or lie again and prove me correct.
Lady Sekhmetnakt Added Mar 27, 2017 - 5:58pm
Nice come back J Riddle, way to shine a little bit of light on the bullshit storm that Bill was selling. 
Lady Sekhmetnakt Added Mar 27, 2017 - 6:05pm
Nexist I am a Progressive by the original meaning of the word. If you wish to confuse Progressives with neoliberals then it is you who is trying to put on me a mantle that doesn't fit and I will not accept. If you actually know the difference then you would know, for instance, that a Progressive like myself who supported Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein in the last election would never let a neoliberal like Hillary Clinton represent is, let alone vote for them. If you don't mind being misrepresented by neocons (for instance) that's fine and your choice. But I chose to be only who and what I am, not misrepresented by those I despise.
 
As for your Christian example it's flawed. I know many Christian Baptists who consider the Pope to represent the Devil and Catholics to be anything but fellow Christians. 
Nexist Xenda'ths Added Mar 27, 2017 - 6:23pm
Progressives are just another totalitarian political faction. They are a bit more honest in that they are willing to do anything to promote their power. 

As for being misrepresented, that goes away after the first decade or so. Try being interested in Norther European Culture in the 1980s. It's also why I do not identify myself as a Conservative. To paraphrase a great thinker, "In as much as Conservatives agree with my policies, to that extent I am a Conservative."

As for your assertion that my analysis is flawed, you might try understanding it first. I've looked at your profile since my prior post, are you really claiming that the differences between (e.g.) Calvinists and Evangelicals has any more meaning than a pure ranking of their immediate danger to you for your beliefs?
Thomas Sutrina Added Mar 27, 2017 - 6:26pm
Bill C., Moral Foundation Theory has a hell of a lot to do with the actions of Liberals and Conservatives.  If you measure very thing by Care and Fairness then you increase welfare to achieve care and they are willing to redistribute wealth and open the borders to the world because they see fairness as equal outcome.  
 
Conservative measure thing against Liberty, Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity.  The Declaration of Independence defines liberty and authority clearly, natural law and government works for the people.  Borders and immigration based on obtaining loyalty.  And the over reach of government in religion deals with sanctity.
 
Liberals threat the constitution as only an outline and not the law.  And the Declaration of Independence as a part of a past time.  Both are just history.
 
Nexist Xenda'ths Added Mar 27, 2017 - 6:27pm
Riddle: The main stream media represents the status quo. The status quo -- i.e. the dominant culture -- is center-left. Hell, even the boogie man FOX news is centrist with a slew of liberal viewpoints. THey are more partisan, do the general slant of populism has caused them to reign back, but it was mighty interesting seeing them shill for Hillary.
Lady Sekhmetnakt Added Mar 27, 2017 - 6:29pm
Nexist writes "Progressives are just another totalitarian political faction." If you seriously believe that what more do us being clear enemies have to say to one another? 
 
As for your ridiculous comments about my beliefs, we Kemetians are no more "threatened" by Christianity today than we were hundreds or thousands of years ago. Much less so in America where freedom of Religion is the Constitutional law of the land. But nice job changing the subject instead of addressing my actual point. 
Nexist Xenda'ths Added Mar 27, 2017 - 6:35pm
Jenifer: Your point is irrelevant to the topic. It fails to detract from the point of the initial statement. The point is in regard to the viewpoint of outsiders, not the faithful.

As for the threats to your beliefs, I can only infer that you are unfamiliar with history -- or that you've filled in your reconstructed paganism with post-Christian/liberal doctrine such that it is essentially the same as the dominant culture. It was common enough with all the Wiccan, neo-Pagan, and New Age groups that flourished from the 60s-90s.
Nexist Xenda'ths Added Mar 27, 2017 - 6:37pm
But I should probably apologize to Bill for diverging so far from the topic of his post.
Paul K. Added Mar 27, 2017 - 6:57pm
Re your response to my Post:  Part of your Post stated; "My signature concern is economic matters.  Specifically, I want poor people to climb the income ladder and become productive members of society.  Liberals seem perfectly happy having the taxpayers provide for them, as once firmly attached to the teat of the state they become loyal liberal voters."
<<<<< So Don't tell my my comment has nothing to do with your direction! I simply ignored the rest of your comment and responded to your opening , and its impact on "your poor people to climb..etc. etc..... How is Trump going to improve poor peoples lot? So far it's rhetoric and no discernible substance. He makes it up on the hoof, he does not even afford the poor people the courtesy to consider his answer, or consult with SME's on the topic.
This guy should be impeached on the number of lies and alternative truth's alone. You pontificate about abortion and same sex marriage and the philosophy either of your two Parties espouse, how about pulling finger and get together and tell Trump to come up with at least some of the promises he made to get elected.
Finally, I repeat my question: ARE YOU GUYS NUTS? 
Trump is divisive, there is no substance in the Man.
Ask what his action will be with the money he spends on the Military? How do you feel about "POTUS"being the laughing stock of the rest of the world?
What is his rationale, an alternative reality? 
PWK astounded!
(And yes I will write my own, but whilst you give me the opportunity to respond, I will provide you with my 2cents)
 
Lady Sekhmetnakt Added Mar 27, 2017 - 6:59pm
You have it quite backwards Nexist. Christians filled in their beliefs with our (Kemetian) savior. They just changed his name to Jesus from Heru/Horus. Also Kemetians are not Pagans we are Monotheistic, believing in one God. The Greeks being Pagans misrepresented the Netjeru as "gods" when in fact they are more akin to angels or saints, ideas, again, taken from our ancient beliefs "borrowed" by Christianity. That's why the Pope's staff is virtually identical to the one the Pharoah carried. We certainly didn't copy the future, they copied us. Also I'm a hereditary Kemetian, not a reconstructionist.. Sure our religion has evolved over time, but we bare no similarities to Wicca, we utilize the ancient texts in the ancient Egyptian language. And regardless I see no reason to feel "threatened" for anything you said even if half of it were true, and it's not. You are correct on one thing. This is WAY off topic. Apparently you feel threatened in the presence of a non-Christian with a strong personality who won't back down from you. 
 
Then again just as you claim all liberals are tyrants, I could say all conservatives are fascists. But like Tom says once you start (mis) labeling people fascists (or tyrants) the conversion has basically ended. All that remains is more name calling and mindless categorizing of people into groups of friend or foe. So I won't follow your example, because unlike you being of a non-Christian and non-Western mindset I don't see things in black and white, but many shades of grey. And I have conservative and Christian friends. Just not conservatives or Christians like you. More like Louis Weeks. 
 
Finally, why did you bother looking at my profile? No one but me apparently fills them out. You certainly didn't. Then again I have nothing to hide. Or fear. 
 
 
Dino Manalis Added Mar 27, 2017 - 7:30pm
It's good to be generally conservative on economic and social issues, but still pro-labor; pro-choice; pro-immigration; and pro-environment.
J. Riddle Added Mar 27, 2017 - 8:03pm
"The main stream media represents the status quo. The status quo -- i.e. the dominant culture -- is center-left."
 
The status quo of what? The corporate press is, like the political Establishment, well to the right of the public.
 
"Hell, even the boogie man FOX news is centrist with a slew of liberal viewpoints."
 
Fox is an extreme-right outlet. Liberals aren't entirely banned from it but they mostly are.
 
"it was mighty interesting seeing them shill for Hillary."
 
I see. Do let us know what the shuttle lands, won't you?
Bill Caciene Added Mar 27, 2017 - 8:19pm
Nexist
Your comment reminds of the story of Brendan Eich.  If you recall he gave to a cause that his employees disagreed with.  Because Californians don’t believe in anonymous speech, his donation was made public and he was driven out of his job by the liberal mob.  So I agree with you but let’s not throw in the towel on conservatism yet, there is still hope even people in California will recognize the error of their ways.
 
Riddle
If the mainstream media isn’t liberal how do you explain the slobbering love affair for Obama and the open hostility towards Trump?  There is a wealth of information and video evidence supporting my assertion about the main-stream media is liberal, do we need to go there?
 
Shane
You epitomize the point I’m trying to make by making the same false assumption about conservatives.  My point is that very few of us are dominated by religion, despite the liberal media’s attempt to make it appear that way. 
 
Thomas
Spare me the moral foundation theory.  This is a simple conversation, let’s keep it that way. 
 
Paul
“How is Trump going to improve poor peoples lot?”
I still assert a conversation about Trump is off-topic, but to answer your question: by helping them find gainful employment.  The only way to do that is by embracing capitalism and rejecting socialism, as a strong economy will provide more of those jobs than any other means.   While I was not a huge fan of Trump, he’s a far better choice than Hillary and Obama for that matter.   The two of them are clearly believers in socialism and that depresses the likelihood the poor will rise-up. 
 
Dino
Conservatives are pro-labor, pro-choice, pro-legal immigration and pro-environment.  It looks to me like you’ve been watching too much main-stream media too. 
Nexist Xenda'ths Added Mar 27, 2017 - 8:19pm
Riddle: This gets back to the earlier post regarding the study on how Liberals are ignorant of Conservatives. Being to the right of you (personally) does not make someone "of the right". Further, since my parents actually watch FOX news, I've had the opportunity to actually watch it rather than rely on partisan actors to tell me what they are saying. If you think FOX is far right, it is no wonder the left goes ballistic over every minor difference from the accepted norm.

You should probably return to your echo chamber, prolonged exposure could be detrimental to your perception of your mental health.
J. Riddle Added Mar 27, 2017 - 8:33pm
"If the mainstream media isn’t liberal how do you explain the slobbering love affair for Obama and the open hostility towards Trump?"
 
Those in the corporate press tend to worship at the alter of the Political Center, which they always define as well to the right of the general public. Someone like Trump, a compulsive lair of the far-right who ran a protofascist campaign, is outside their narrow spectrum. In the Democratic primary, a real left candidate (Sanders) faced a more conservative one (Clinton) and the press, as a virtual monolith, sided with the latter. As usual. All that "open hostility" toward Trump didn't prevent the press from granting him many times more coverage than any of the other candidates. They "hate" him so much, they helped make him president.
 
I'll also note that you ignored my systematic dismantling of your article to focus on that tangential, mostly irrelevant issue.
J. Riddle Added Mar 27, 2017 - 8:42pm
"If you think FOX is far right, it is no wonder the left goes ballistic over every minor difference from the accepted norm."
 
Some years ago, Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting studied the guest-list for 19 weeks of Fox News' Special Report. Of the guests affiliated with a political party in that time, 89% were Republicans. For comparison purposes, they also examined the guestlist during that same period for Wolf Blitzer Reports, the CNN equivalent. There, "only" 57% of guests were Republicans. That's how the "liberal" media work.
 
"You should probably return to your echo chamber"
 
I do press criticism, boy. You're out of your league.
wsucram15 Added Mar 27, 2017 - 8:42pm
Bill..Im not sure your article is fair to all liberals. How many do you know personally or do you go by posts online of people who have no idea of what they speak?
Look, I have been out to these protests and town hall meetings,met and spoke with almost as many "conservatives" as "liberals or progressives", they are labels.   There a multiple similarities, the approach as to how they want them solved in many instances is in some cases different. There are exceptions and that has been interesting, but I have listened to both sides.
I dont think that any politician on either side of the aisle is 100% correct. But I know this and history should tell all of you this, until Congress stops this partisanship, its hurting the people.
Now as far as Trump goes, he is not a Republican, he is a populist and while a careful guy, (he does plan to run again) will switch with the wind. (not to a dem but more moderate if it serves his agenda).
Also its what he should do, its his job...he needs to unite the people not divide them, even if he might not agree personally.
I know you are a guy on the hard right of this issue, but you need to know..not all "liberals" think the same. They just dont.  I dont agree with a good bit of the party and some of my friends. But I cant go with the Republicans either, I just find the current "right" to be too harmful and a little apathetic.   I really hate the credits to the wealthy...which I will always oppose. 
Also I am pro-choice but after 3 months it should stop. There should always be contraceptives provided. Forced procreation is barbaric.  I have my reasons for this. 
Other than that, I can see some of the cuts and downsizing on some agencies, but not all.  The EPA, FDA and Dept of Education may need reform but need to be there. The State Department also needs to be there with the intelligence Dept.
I used to believe in a WALL..but feel it could be managed with extra manpower and electronic surveillance, my cousin is down that way and works DEA, I have to utilize his expertise.
The military spending needs reconfigured but not further expenditures, someone that knows how to budget could do this, I dont think Trump has ever budgeted anything in his life. Its my opinion. We dont need more ships and contracts which are a waste of money for the taxpayers due to wasteful spending.  We do need to update our missile silos and cyber abilities.
 
 
Nexist Xenda'ths Added Mar 27, 2017 - 8:43pm
1) No, I do not have it backwards. You are not the heir of an unbroken lineage stretching back to ancient Egypt. Then again, given the volatile nature of the Ancient Egyptian religion, such as we know of it, it is sort of misleading to pretend it was some unified set of beliefs. The fact of the existence of other slain and resurrected/reborn gods does not mean that they necessarily lifted the idea from another. Human beings tend to come up with similar solutions to similar problems. The dying and reborn sun (as day/night) and earth (as the year) easily lends itself to personifying divine forces as also being cyclical.
However, the cult of Jesus won. It dominated the West for 500-1500 years (depending on location) and gave birth to Modernity (this has been addressed in numerous works by various authors). Liberalism is little more than Christianity without god. It is an attempt to manifest the Christian promises in the secular world as political action.
Any reconstructed or new religion is birthed within this matrix. While Christianity may or may not have lifted from Egypt (though this is doubtful), it is undeniable that the Christian conception of the slain and resurrected god informed any reconstruction of a slain and resurrected god. How could it not? There are gaps in the record. The missing holes need to be filled and the matter at hand is Christian & post-Christian thought.
Only Asatru can make a claim to an unbroken tradition, and even then, their tradition has been affected by proximity to & interaction with Christianity.
2) You could claim that, but that would also be missing the deeper questions. Many do say all conservatives are fascists. Btw, I never said liberals are tyrants, I said that Liberalism is a Totalitarian ideology (along with Progressivism, Communism, Fascism, Neoconservativism, Christianity, Islam, etc). I suppose it is a subtle difference, but it is meaningful. Also, I am neither Christian nor especially Conservative. It seems only "my" profile picture was copied across, so the normal blurb of [Parent, Sailor, Thelemite, Traditionalist. “Modern society works fervently to put vulgarity within the reach of everyone.” -- Nicolás Gómez Dávila] didn't make it through.
3) I already answered that. It was made for me. C'est la vie. I'll get around to correcting it now that I know.
wsucram15 Added Mar 27, 2017 - 8:53pm
Also..religion and politics dont mix.
AND both sides of the media are biased...watch the one that leans the way you like for the current news and do your own research.  I like CSPAN myself and currently a Russian paper, (NOT RT).
I have one reporter I follow..actually two. I get research from time to time and I love Jester.  Not your cup of tea but great for research.
Thomas Sutrina Added Mar 27, 2017 - 8:58pm
Bill it is hard to talk about "False Conceptions About Conservatives." unless you know the concepts of conservatives. That is if you really what intelligent people to respond.
So if you only want people's opinion you can have a great discussion about lint in the navel.  Do not have to care about the subject because you will always get an opinion.
Nexist Xenda'ths Added Mar 27, 2017 - 8:58pm
WSUCram15: They can't but be mixed. If you want to understand someone's motivations for their temporal policies, you must look to what they hold as transcendent values.
wsucram15 Added Mar 27, 2017 - 9:01pm
Perhaps, while it may be the motivation..intent can be taken into account should things go wrong and in that case in the US, they would lose.   Just saying.
Nexist Xenda'ths Added Mar 27, 2017 - 9:06pm
WSUCram15: I am not parsing that. Can you expand a bit.
Lady Sekhmetnakt Added Mar 27, 2017 - 9:17pm
Wow, so now Nexist claims to know my ancestoral history better than I. Just wow! That takes some gall or imagination to say the least. Then you top yourself with this ridiculous statement "Liberalism is little more than Christianity without god." Right. Explains why so many liberals are religious, like myself - oh wait, I forgot you know me better than myself. You know how ridiculous you sound? We are done, or I am with this pointless nonsense. Believe whatever you need to if it helps you sleep better. I don't care. My reality is not defined by delusional people. 
Nexist Xenda'ths Added Mar 27, 2017 - 9:47pm
Jenifer: Please pick up a book or two. If you are claiming an ancestral history tied to an unbroken chain from Egypt. Yeah, you are delusional. If speaking facts makes me sound "ridiculous", so be it.
 
Btw, I checked out the website for the "University of Kemetic Sciences". Amusing that you would even bother to argue about the holes and gaps being filled given the book page. I noted that, unlike most religions you don't give a creed or statement of belief or any information. Do you get that after you shell out some money?
Nexist Xenda'ths Added Mar 27, 2017 - 9:59pm
Oh, as for the "Liberalism" is little more than Christianity without God", the short version (heavily glossed) goes like this.
 
Christianity has dominated Western Culture for so long that its values became primary. You can see this in such things as the concept of the Individual and Egalitarianism (each person is a special snowflake beloved of Yahweh/Jesus). When the crisis of faith brought about by scientific inquiry rendered the doctrines of the Church questionable, the belief in God (as it was then) became untenable. The Church says the Earth is the center, Science shows the Sun is the center, etc, etc. This crisis is known as the Enlightenment.
 
God provided the center for anchoring the values held by society. In order to prevent the dissolution of society, people cast about for a new anchor. Thus was born "Humanism".
 
For more, you should read some Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Schmitt. Then read some books on history and society.
wsucram15 Added Mar 28, 2017 - 2:28am
Nexist..in the US, while there are some things allowed, for the most part there is a separation of religion and law.  How things operate...intent (as you stated) could be used against you.  I have seen this done both in trial court and appellate court.
I know thats not what you were talking about, but when you raise values and motivations today...in this political climate, not sure how that would turn out.  Just saying.
I have a friend that is a ordained minister, one of the best I have ever seen, she is a woman and extremely gifted. If her motivation to save or help broke the law, I would get her an attorney if several didnt volunteer.    There are laws about that.
There was a Preacher down South a few years back (dont remember details offhand) and as a Christian he decided he was going to burn a pile of Q'uran's.  He has the right?  Well in Con law, we had to argue it as the federal government stopped him for the second time.   They only did that to stop the dispute with the Muslim community, but they were able to legally stop him.  Religious expression and the law or in practice is a complicated issue.  In this case it was considered extremist.
Mark Hunter Added Mar 28, 2017 - 3:04am
Good post, and good point. I think it's important to remember that most people in America (and in all the world, I'd think) don't fit the category of extremist in either direction--it's just that the extremists are the ones who scream the loudest.
Billy Roper Added Mar 28, 2017 - 7:58am
I'm not a "conservative", because I don't think that multiracial democracy is a system worth conserving. What the United States was intended to be, a White republic, has been corrupted past the point of conserving. That's why civil war is now inevitable. Talk about getting lost in translation. All nonWhites above the ghetto level understand that the breakup of America is coming, and fear the loss of comfort and camouflage that it will take away from them. What’s amusing is how lost they are when it comes to understanding how the forces at play pushing balkanization will blossom. Outside of the mental framework of either contending side, Asians and Muslims both are confused. The only frame of reference they can fall back onto for comparison is the LAST civil war. The next one will be different, but the Muslim author of a new book about the coming conflict may have something to add to our understanding of what to anticipate, this time around: massive refugee camps for displaced persons, drone strikes, and suicide bombers. target="_blank">Michiko Kakutani reviews ‘American War’ by Omar El Akkad.
Bill Caciene Added Mar 28, 2017 - 9:45am
Riddle
Nexist can speak for me any day.  You should show her more respect, she deserves it. 
 
Wsucram15
I know many liberals personally and all of them say they’re liberal mostly for social reasons.  As stated before, this is not an article about Trump or what policies the country should pursue.  If you want to discuss that stuff, you should write an article of your own.  However, I will veer off-course and provide a few comments on what you wrote: 
 
-I also don’t think any politician is 100% correct either. 
 
-It’s not partisanship that’s hurting people, passing stupid laws is what hurts people.  After all, a stupid law, whether it be voted on in a bipartisan manner or not, is still a stupid law. 
 
-How do you know the proper amount of military spending required to keep the peace?
 
Thomas
I know conservatives are NOT bible-thumpers like the liberal media attempts to make us out to be.  That’s what this article is about and one doesn’t need any information on moral foundation theory to get my point. 
 
Billy
I have no time for bigots. 
Jeffry Gilbert Added Mar 28, 2017 - 11:13am
He said she said blather that only serves to illustrate how well the owners of DUHmerica have succeeded at keeping you at each other's throats. 
Nexist Xenda'ths Added Mar 28, 2017 - 11:22am
WSUCram15: I don't recall an exception in the first amendment for "extremism" (however defined) -- nor for that matter anything about feelings or a requirement to be non-offensive.
 
Bill: I'm a guy. Sorry for the misleading profile pic. I was a Asian Studies major (focus on Religion & Art) and I found the image of a Japanese girl giving the bird hilarious -- but thank you.
 
Billy: While I share the belief that the US is in its final phase (ala Spengler), I know to many White people to agree with you. Racial purity is just drawing an arbitrary line in history and saying all mixing after this point is bad. I decidedly agree with Evola, "The Idea, only the Idea, must be the true fatherland for these men: what unites them and sets them apart should consist in adherence to the same idea, rather than to the same land, language, or blood."
Nexist Xenda'ths Added Mar 28, 2017 - 11:35am
Riddle: As studies have shown, the left, such as yourself, have little conception of the right. The Republican leadership is primarily "Neoconservative" -- i.e. pro-war, anti-communist, pro-zionist liberals. They were former Trotskyites who replaced Communism with free-market capitalism. If you look at what they do rather than the platitudes they give, this should be readily apparent. The rank-and-file are generally center-left. The "extremists" of the right do favor the Republicans as the least onerous and hope to subvert it. Much as how the extreme Left hopes to co-opt the Democrats. Bw, your continuous mislabeling of dissent as "extreme" is likely to backfire. People generally feel that they are correct, so if you tell them they are extremists, they are unlikely to change their mind, but instead consider the possibility that you are correct and move that much closer to extremism.
 
I am not sure if you expect me to be impressed that you do "press criticism". So what? There are many idiots out there offering infantile criticism. It's not like there is some governing body enforcing some sort of intellectual rigor in the field.
wsucram15 Added Mar 28, 2017 - 1:24pm
ok Nexist...

 
J. Riddle Added Mar 28, 2017 - 1:38pm
"As studies have shown, the left, such as yourself, have little conception of the right."
 
Isn't fencing with strawmen so cool? And so much easier than dealing with a real person! This real person, of course, remains entirely unimpressed though.
 
"The Republican leadership is primarily 'Neoconservative' -- i.e. pro-war, anti-communist, pro-zionist liberals. They were former Trotskyites who replaced Communism with free-market capitalism."
 
Number of people in the Republican leadership who are "former Trotskyites": 0.
 
Number of people in the Republican leadership who are "liberals": 0.
 
The Repub leadership is pro-war and anti-communist because the American right is pro-war and anti-communist. This isn't some "neoconservative" faction--it's the mainstream.
 
"The rank-and-file are generally center-left."
 
Percentage of Repub voters who are liberal: Between 12-33%.
 
"Bw, your continuous mislabeling of dissent as 'extreme'"
 
Number of times I've labeled "dissent" as "extreme": 0.
 
Number of times I've labeled extremists as "extreme": Whenever it was merited.
Bill Caciene Added Mar 28, 2017 - 1:44pm
Nexist
“The Republican leadership is primarily "Neoconservative" -- i.e. pro-war, anti-communist, pro-zionist liberals.”
 
I couldn’t disagree more with that.  Name one prominent politician of any Party that is pro-war, is pro-communist or believes the state of Israel shouldn’t exist.  In other words, your assessment of Neoconservatism applies to nobody.  
wsucram15 Added Mar 28, 2017 - 1:46pm
Bill..we have had relative peace, for the past 8 years, also some of my family is military.  It is my opinion, based on outdated infrastructure (1980s) controlling missiles.  I do believe that this and cyber security would be slightly more important due to the type of hybrid warfare being conducted internationally by several countries, including the US.  Since our private military internet was hacked with thumb drives, we need some additional security or further breach protection.  We have some good capability but it could be improved.

Im pretty sure the waste on contracts could be made up with oversight.  This is pretty well public knowledge of the bidding process and how contracts are obtained.  But in the end to answer your question,..research and experience with government contracts.  Also business budgets.
 
Also I disagree about passing laws, its obstruction..on both sides that hurts people. Passing laws is their job. But its not worth debating..
 
J. Riddle Added Mar 28, 2017 - 1:48pm
Bill writ:
 
"Nexist can speak for me any day"
 
One post later...
 
"I couldn’t disagree more with that."
Jeffry Gilbert Added Mar 28, 2017 - 1:49pm
Check your reading comprehension Caciene
Nexist Xenda'ths Added Mar 28, 2017 - 1:51pm
I said anti-communist and pro-Zionist. 
Nexist Xenda'ths Added Mar 28, 2017 - 2:03pm
Riddle:

I made a typo. The rank and file Republicans are Center-RIGHT, not center-left. 

You might look into the definitions of the various logical fallacies. You may think it sounds cool to bandy them about, but people who know what they mean just laugh at you.

Sadly, you are just reinforcing the statistical average that the study demonstrated.

Your definition of "extreme" is someone who disagrees. Since you believe that you are right, and that those who disagree with certain principles are morally suspect, this is quite common.
 
I could go on (before I settled on Asian Studies, I was a Psych Major), but it is boring for me & I really should get back to work.
J. Riddle Added Mar 28, 2017 - 2:15pm
"Sadly, you are just reinforcing the statistical average that the study demonstrated."
 
...he said, instead of addressing a single substantive thing I'd written. Blowing me out of the water on this business of the Repub leadership should be very simple if there was any truth at all to your claims. You'd just have to name all those in the leadership who were "liberals" and "former Trotskyists" or show that the American right in general isn't pro-war or anti-communist or show all those instances of me labeling "dissent" as "extreme." You entirely failed to do any of these things, while falling back on your straw man fallacy, which I'm sure shocks everyone else here just as much as it did me.

"Your definition of 'extreme' is someone who disagrees."
 
My definition of "extreme" is the same as one finds in any dictionary. When the Republican party comes out in support of a "human life" amendment that would ban all abortions, ban in vetro procedures for the infertile, ban embryonic stem-cell research, require a federal murder investigation of every miscarriage as a constitutional mandate and, if given the reading the amendment's advocates prefer, ban most birth control, that is, by definition, "extreme." If it's explained to people, support for it wouldn't rise above singe digits.
Q. Added Mar 28, 2017 - 3:00pm
Nice work.....  
some time ago I used to think of myself as liberal... I mean, on paper, I supported the same values that they seem to have been.
But the practice is a bit different
these days- there is no real difference between liberals and conservatives....and even if there is any- it is when conservatives show more progressive values than the liberals....   I mean, everything that they have been accusing the conservatives for decades- is now put in practice by liberals themselves.
They do not tolerate any opposing opinion or belief. They are extremely aggressive while sticking to their guns even when they are obviously wrong. They believe that everyone should think, act and believe everything that they do- in the exact manner that they do.... and they even speak of punishments for those with opposing opinions and the banning of books and other outlets with opinions that are not along their lines ---which is pure fascism...
  I dunno any more guys--- I know I am no conservative--- but I sure as hell am not one of these nazi liberals.
 
 
Micahel Dolan Added Mar 28, 2017 - 3:56pm
When liberals look at America, they see two things-a country that scares them, and a potential launching pad for their idealistic,utopian dreams. This helps explain why they have such a us vs. them mentality. 
Nexist Xenda'ths Added Mar 28, 2017 - 5:17pm
Riddle: You've written something substantive? The problem with verifying obvious facts is that it demonstrates a woeful lack of basic knowledge on the topic. Paul Gottfried wrote a couple of books that might help, "The Conservative Movement" & "Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America". These will hopefully fill the gaps in your knowledge.
 
This is reminding me of another article about the habit the left has of requiring different types of proof. When you castigate, as in your litany of "extremism", one example tars everyone, but arguments opposing you require exact specificity.
 
Just for you and your pedantic requirements for your opposition: The intellectual wing of the Republican party is dominated by those who can be identified as members of, or allied with, the Neoconservative movement. THis cabal has its adherents who dominate the Republican party's leadership. Neoconservative thought is derived from disciples of Leo Strauss many of whom were former Trotskyists (as evidenced by their own fond reminiscences in various interviews) and other types of anti-Stalinist Liberals.
 
If you wish to argue this, I must insist that you actually do some research and actually read a book or two.
 
PS. I looked in the dictionary and found that it doesn't mention any of the things you list. Moral relativism works both ways. You consider these things extreme. Others do not. Extremism is yet another buzzword devoid of any real meeting. It wouldn't be so bad except you have a distressing tendency to view your personal subjective moral outlook as being universal and applicable to everyone.
George Dienhart Added Mar 28, 2017 - 5:31pm
Well stated, Bill.
J. Riddle Added Mar 28, 2017 - 7:26pm
"You've written something substantive? The problem with verifying obvious facts"
 
...and then he goes off on yet another empty, insult-laden rant that again entirely avoids what I'd written earlier. And this...
 
"The intellectual wing of the Republican party"
 
You can stop right there--your effort to move the goalposts and retreat to this undefinable nonsense is hereby vetoed. Your claim was that the leadership of the Republican party "is primarily 'Neoconservative' -- i.e. pro-war, anti-communist, pro-zionist liberals. They were former Trotskyites..."  Supporting this claim requires naming those in the leadership of the Republican party who are "liberals" and "former Trotskyites."
 
I'll even help you out: the chair of the Republican Party is Ronna McDaniel, the co-chair Bob Paduchik. If one wants to extend this to the party elected officials (which isn't unreasonable), Trump is, of course, at the top of the heap, then there's Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy and Steve Scalise in the House of Representatives and Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn in the Senate.
 
I just can't wait to hear you go into their backgrounds in your next post and explain how each is a "liberal" and "former Trotskyite." Or, in absence of that, withdraw your assertions and conceding that your comment was an idiotic fantasy, of no more substance than Trump's thousands of 9/11-celebrating Jersey City Muslims.
 
I'll also again note what I pointed out earlier, that "the Repub leadership is pro-war and anti-communist because the American right is pro-war and anti-communist. This isn't some 'neoconservative' faction--it's the mainstream." Something else you've avoided, along with that business of extremists. "Extremist: n. - "a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action." Something that, in as well-polled a society as ours, is quantifiable with numbers.
 
Now insult me some more.
Nexist Xenda'ths Added Mar 28, 2017 - 7:52pm
Riddle: While I realize that you aren't really used to informed opponents, you really need to chill out. They aren't "moving goalposts" it is a case of a colloquially utilized phrase having multiple interpretations. What is the "Leadership" of the Republican party? The personalities that rotate through various chairs or the people who provide the ideological underpinnings which guide those interchangeable parts? It is obvious that you want to go after people, I am looking at the ideas that drive these people. This is also why your understanding is shallow. 
 
Since I am talking about thoughts and trends that have been building since before 1980 on through to the present day, I find your tossing the name of relative newcomers to be fully indicative of just how little you grasp. This is the main problem with liberals, neocons, etc. They refuse to look at the bigger picture. They treat society and politics as if it were some reality show with no past and no future, only an eternal now of self-gratification.
 
Now you claim that Republican leadership is pro-war, etc. This glosses over the (probably) uncomfortable fact that Democrats have been supporting war as well. Liberals like war when it is their guy doing the hitting. Neocons do as well -- though the neocons just want more wars to support their ends, namely the liberal agenda of forcing everyone to live by Secular Liberal Democratic (i.e. Western) norms. Prominent Democrats have also supported every war we've been in since 1992 (I admit I am a bit fuzzy on Hillary's support for war prior to 1992).

As for extremism, you still haven't connected the Republican Party with "extremism". And as I recall, there was a poll held last November that was rather decisive on this topic. Republicans now control the legislative and executive branches. Wouldn't that make them the norm?
 
PS. before you even try, Trump losing the popular vote doesn't invalidate the point since the popular vote is irrelevant in the presidential race and if it weren't they would have conducted the race differently. Instead, look to the dominance Republicans hold overall.
Bill Caciene Added Mar 28, 2017 - 8:53pm
wsucram15
I fail to see the relevance of a disagreement over the right amount of military spending and the article I wrote.  One thing I do know is that having family in the military does not make you more knowledgeable on the matter.  I also know that eradicating waste is much easier said than done. 
 
So there is no such thing as bad legislation?
 
Nexist
You miss my point. Everyone, as in not just neoconservatives, are anti-communist and pro-Israel and nobody is pro-war. 
 
Q.
The good news is that you don’t need to define yourself in such narrow terms as conservative or liberal.  You should each candidate the benefit of the doubt and let their stance on the issues, and not their Party affiliation determine, if they get your support.  Having said that, I’ve never supported a liberal/Democrat, so I guess that makes me a conservative.
 
Michael
I think it would behoove all of us if we treated our political opponents with more respect and less animosity.  After all, respect begets respect. 
J. Riddle Added Mar 29, 2017 - 1:19am
"While I realize that you aren't really used to informed opponents"
 
I've debated enough of them to know one from an empty bloviator like yourself.
 
"They aren't 'moving goalposts'"
 
...and then you go on to explain how, when you say the leadership of the Republican party, you don't really mean the leadership of the Republican party. Why, one would almost think you were entirely incapable of supporting your earlier assertion that said leadership was made up of "liberals" and "former Trotskyites"!
 
"This is also why your understanding is shallow."
 
Be sure to get in those ad hominems you haven't earned.

"Since I am talking about thoughts and trends that have been building since before 1980 on through to the present day, I find your tossing the name of relative newcomers"
 
I can extend the scope of this as far as need be. The current head of the Republican party is Ronna McDaniel. Before that, it was Reince Priebus. Then Michael Steele, Mike Duncan, Ken Mehlman, Ed Gillespie and on and on. In the House, we've had Ryan, John Boehner, Denny "Rapey" Hastert, Newt Gingrich and so on. In the Senate, McConnell, Bill Frist, Trent Lott, Bob Dole and so on. In the White House, Trump, Bush Jr., Bush Sr., Reagan and so on.
 
"to be fully indicative of just how little you grasp."
 
And:
 
"This is the main problem with liberals"
 
And:
 
"They treat society and politics as if it were some reality show"
 
And so on--more unearned ad homs, while still refusing to address the substantive points on the table.
 
"Now you claim that Republican leadership is pro-war, etc."
 
No, you made that claim, as anyone reading this can see. And that leadership is pro-war. I merely noted that they are so because American conservatives are as well and that this pro-war-ism comes from that conservatism, not, as you were trying to claim, from some separate class of "neoconservatives."
 
"This glosses over the (probably) uncomfortable fact that Democrats have been supporting war as well."
 
No, the views of Democrats on such policies are entirely irrelevant here; this is a discussion of the Republican leadership and its constituency. This latest effort to move the goalposts is, like the last, hereby vetoed.
 
"As for extremism, you still haven't connected the Republican Party with 'extremism'."
 
To the contrary, I've demonstrated the Repubs have embraced extremism when it comes to abortion, which is the topic in which that matter was raised. I can go on about that at greater length but it seems rather pointless when you're so vehemently refusing to defend your own statements.
 
"And as I recall, there was a poll held last November"
 
That's not a "poll," but thanks for playing.
 
"that was rather decisive on this topic. Republicans now control the legislative and executive branches. Wouldn't that make them the norm?"
 
The most recent Quinnipiac and Gallup polls have Trump's approval rating at, respectively, 37% and 36%, statistical ties and record lows. Even his average, which is artificially driven up by fake Rasmussen "polls," put his approval at only 40.5%. Gallup currently has approval of congress at a whopping 24%.

"PS. before you even try, Trump losing the popular vote doesn't invalidate the point"
 
If one wanted to pretend as if the election was a "poll," yes, it blows your assertion right out of the water (and opens the door to how the office was won by Trump after he lost the election, which isn't somewhere you will want to go either). Calling the election a "poll" then trying to rule its outcome irrelevant moves the goalposts within the same sentence, which is, so far, a record for you in this thread.
Nexist Xenda'ths Added Mar 29, 2017 - 1:48am
Bill: I am of the opinion if your go to solution is war, then you are pro-war. If you vote for war, you are pro-war. Actions speak louder than platitudes. The neocons see war as a primary instrument for enacting regime change. They were pushing it under Clinton under the guise of the New American Century and continue to do so now. Our foreign policy pretty much goes along the lines of "do what we tell you to do or we will drop bombs on you". It's been that way for the past 24 years (probably longer). Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc, etc.
Nexist Xenda'ths Added Mar 29, 2017 - 1:56am
Riddle: It seems you want to narrowly define the range of acceptable argument so you have a chance of "winning". That's stupid and short sighted. You keep claiming ad hominem, but really nothing I've said is untrue. Your arguments are weak and shallow. I've answered your "questions" within their original framework. Just because you are (obviously) unfamiliar with that framework does not invalidate the argument. Neither does it magically grant coherence or logic to your position. You're like a little mini-Torquemada, trying to bolster your faith by crushing dissenting views.
 
What person X says or does is only meaningful in the broader context. Otherwise you are just a sheet torn from the clothesline flapping around in the wind.
 
Though I give a thumbs up for correctly using bloviate. It's probably the most impressive thing you've done so far.
Mike Haluska Added Mar 29, 2017 - 9:15am
Liberals are only able to sell their crap to other parasites that would benefit from their "programs".  They had their way since the Great Depression was mistakenly blamed on Capitalism, but that generation and the memory of the Great Depression is long gone and their influence has been decaying since Reagan. 
 
With a mere 22% participation rate nationwide, losing the House, Senate, Presidency, Supreme Court the "Progressives in the Democratic Party are desperate - hence the "Political Correctness" campaigns.  When you're wrong and you know it, the only card left to play is silence/eliminate the other side - which is the essence of Political Correctness.  The liberals overplayed that card and the nation reacted in record opposition - despite what the Mainstream Media (the Democratic Party's version of PRAVDA) tells you.
 
The ONLY way the Democratic Party survives is if the traditional working class Democrats jettison the liberal elites and progressives and go back to what made them a great political party - the party for WORKING PEOPLE, not the party for PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT TO WORK. 
Bill Caciene Added Mar 30, 2017 - 12:05pm
Nexist
“I am of the opinion if your go to solution is war, then you are pro-war.”
Nobody believes the solution to our problems is war, but some believe war is the only alternative. The point is that I completely disagree with you labeling conservative leadership as “pro-war.” Similarly, if conservatives are anti-communist, is it your suggestion that liberals are pro-communist? Dislike liberals like I do, I don’t think they’re communists or wish for Israel to be wiped off the map.
 
Mike
I have the same comment for you that I offered Dolan “I think it would behoove all of us if we treated our political opponents with more respect and less animosity.  After all, respect begets respect.”
 
Dominic
I somewhat agree, but what does your comment have to do with the argument I’ve put forth in this article. The reason I only somewhat agree is because whatever waste occurs at the Federal level could just as easily occur at the state level. We need to fundamentally change what all levels of government do as the more they do the less money we all have for ourselves.
Nexist Xenda'ths Added Mar 30, 2017 - 11:00pm
Bill: We're probably going to have to agree to disagree on that one. While they may make claims of desiring peace, it seems obvious that what they mean by peace is a total and utter capitulation to their dictates. It doesn't just affect the Republicans, the Democrats are just as eager to blow things up, but you can see the calls to war with the provocations with Russia, Syria, Iran, etc, etc. You can see it in the support for rebellions in Ukraine. Even with Libya, all the fuss about Benghazi is a distraction from the fact that we shouldn't have attacked Libya in the first place. The poetic justice of the man who orchestrated the coup being killed by the rebels he motivated is almost too much to handle. It is lessened by the other deaths, but we've never let that distract us from the neoconservative desire to remodel the world. We've been involved in some kind of military action in some part of the world continuously since WWII, over three-quarters of a century.
 
The "anti-communist" refers to the historical legacy which drove the neocons from the Left which did, at that time, lean toward (& often outright supported) Communism.
Bill Caciene Added Mar 31, 2017 - 8:11am
Nexist
What seems to be true to you is false.  Nobody is pro-war, it’s a false accusation to accuse anyone of being.  As it relates to our Russian provocations, let’s not forget that it was Russia that invaded and annexed at gun point a sovereign nation.  Having said that, I don’t even think Putin is pro-war.
Nexist Xenda'ths Added Mar 31, 2017 - 12:07pm
Bill: I would need a bit more backing to accept that assertion. I've given examples, you need to either demonstrate how those examples do not demonstrate a propensity to armed action (i.e. are not pro-war) or give counter examples.
 
What sovereign country has Russia annexed. Crimea was not a sovereign nation. It was a Russian territory that was shifted to being a Ukrainian territory by some administrative decision and when the Ukraine, through our interference, staged a coup d'état, Russia re-acquired it, seemingly in accord with the will of the majority of Crimeans. Are you referring to something else?
Peter Corey Added Apr 1, 2017 - 4:27am
>Did you check any of his proposed benefits he proposed to enhance Life in the USA better than the Opposition.
 
"Benefits"?
 
Except for conservatives and libertarians in the U.S., the rest of the world (as well as leftists in the U.S.) conflates the idea of government with the idea of Santa Claus. Instead of accepting the notion of "That government governs best which governs least", it believes the exact opposite: "That government governs best which redistributes wealth and distributes as many 'benefits' as possible to as many factions as possible."
 
It's a reversal of the western tradition on political economy since the Enlightenment era. The purpose of government is to protect individual rights; not to violate them by distributing "benefits" to everyone
 
>Tell me how many Americans have the certainty to get healtcare now? 
 
Probably more now than previously under ObamaCare, which made health insurance unaffordable for many in the middle-class; and without doubt, more Americans have access to high-quality healthcare than New Zealanders, who now constantly complain of year-long wait times for hip-replacements or knee-replacements; whose healthcare system has a chronic shortage of vaccines for newborns and heart-disease drugs for seniors; which has a wait time of 6 weeks or longer for an MRI; which has shortages of doctors and screening staff for its "bowel imaging" mandates; which has lower cancer survival rates than Australia (which, in turn, has lower survival rates than the U.S.); and which, in any case, is understandably trying to nudge people onto private insurance, and to use private clinics.
 
All of the data and studies on this are out there. You just have to look for them, rather than taking on blind faith all of the fairy tales your government publishes in order to show itself in the best possible light.
 
Peter Corey Added Apr 1, 2017 - 4:40am
>Some years ago, Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting studied the guest-list for 19 weeks of Fox News' Special Report. Of the guests affiliated with a political party in that time, 89% were Republicans. For comparison purposes, they also examined the guestlist during that same period for Wolf Blitzer Reports, the CNN equivalent. There, "only" 57% of guests were Republicans. That's how the "liberal" media work."
 
Assuming that's even true, it should be mentioned that Wolf Blitzer is a dogmatic moron known for badgering Republican guests, while Bret Baier and Brit Hume are reasonably intelligent and generally phlegmatic. "Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting" probably ignored that qualitative difference in the two programs.
 
And iIn any case, here are some data on the "objectivity" of Fairness and Accuracy In Media:
 
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7092
 

Tax-exempt leftist “media watchdog” organization
Noam Chomsky was keynote speaker at its 15th Anniversary party.


Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) is a tax-exempt "media watchdog" organization founded in 1986 by radical activist Jeff Cohen, who regards the Democratic Party as "right wing." FAIR's position, as summarized in a 2004 target="_new">article co-authored by its senior analyst Steve Rendall and staffer Anna Kosseff, is that, contrary to the claims of conservatives, the mainstream media in America are biased to the right, not to the left.

As evidence for their claim that the establishment media were conservative, Cohen and FAIR cited as evidence the relatively scant coverage and few interviews the media gave to radicals. Political programs typically pitted moderates-labeled-as-liberals against conservatives, target="_new">argued Cohen, while "dissidents like Noam Chomsky and [unilateral nuclear disarmament advocate] Helen Caldicott never appeared once." 

As FAIR became more widely known in media circles, Cohen rose from being an irregular guest to a regular pundit on television. From 1992 until 1997 he target="_new">co-wrote a syndicated column, "Media Beat," with FAIR executive Norman Soloman, who continued to write it solo thereafter. In 1994 Cohen and Solomon began a continuing tradition of giving annual FAIR awards called "The P.U.-litzer Prizes" for examples of what they deemed right-wing or capitalist bias in media.

Among the guests at FAIR's 15th Anniversary party (which was broadcast worldwide by Free Speech TV) in January 2002 was  longtime TV talk show star Phil Donahue. Another was journalist Laura Flanders, former host of FAIR's syndicated radio show Counterspin, which according to FAIR's target="_new">website is currently "heard on more than 125 noncommercial stations across the United States and Canada." (These include some stations affiliated with National Public Radio (NPR) or owned by Pacifica Radio.) The guest of honor and keynote speaker was Noam Chomsky. The threads linking Chomsky and FAIR are extensive. When musicians Bonnie RaittPearl Jam, and REM planned to make a target="_new">CD that combined their music with readings of Chomsky's work, they agreed that the proceeds of that album would go to fund FAIR.
Peter Corey Added Apr 1, 2017 - 4:42am
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7092
 
In recent years, FAIR has been in decline. Solomon departed for San Francisco, siphoning off foundation money (some of which would, in prior years, have gone to FAIR) for his new Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA). The new bankrollers of the left such as billionaire financier George Soros have channeled their millions into other leftist organizations closely tied to the Democratic Party

FAIR has also burned many bridges by attacking not only conservative and moderate media but also traditional allies and comrades of the left. Steve Rendall's and Anna Kosseff's 2004 article titled "I'm Not a Leftist, But I Play One on TV" and other FAIR writings have impugned such left and liberal allies as the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), National Public Radio, Cable News Network, The New Republic, Democratic consultants James Carville and Paul Begala, and many others, accusing them of being centrist sellouts unfit to represent the left in national media. Even radical Pacifica Radio stations were alienated on FAIR's radio show Counterspin.

In 2004 during the Republican National Convention in New York City, FAIR and Paper Tiger TV (both of which have tax-exempt status as non-partisan, non-profit organizations) staged a joint target="_new">"March on the Media" to preemptively discourage any positive reporting about Republicans by the establishment media.  

FAIR's Advisory Board includes actors Edward Asner, John Cusack, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon; journalists Ben Bagdikian, Barbara Ehrenreich, Susan Faludi, Katha Pollitt [of The Nation], and Studs Terkel; musician Jackson Browne [a supporter of the Sandinista dictatorship]; and feminists Eleanor Smeal and Gloria Steinem. Asner, Ehrenreich and Steinem are members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which describes itself as "the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International."

FAIR receives financial support from the target="_new">CarEth Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Rockefeller Family Fund, the Samuel Rubin Foundation, the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, the target="_new">Stewart R. Mott Charitable Trust, the Streisand Foundation, the Tides FoundationWorking Assets, and others. Such grant
Peter Corey Added Apr 1, 2017 - 4:45am
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7092
 
FAIR receives financial support from the target="_new">CarEth Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Rockefeller Family Fund, the Samuel Rubin Foundation, the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, the target="_new">Stewart R. Mott Charitable Trust, the Streisand Foundation, the Tides FoundationWorking Assets, and others. Such grants account for approximately 30 percent of FAIR's annual operating revenue, the rest coming from the donations of 56,000 supporters and subscribers to FAIR's magazine Extra!

From 1998 through 2005, the Ford Foundation made grants to FAIR totaling at least $450,000. It gave another $200,000 to Laura Flanders, the founder of the "Women's Desk" at FAIR who also served as a producer-host on Working Assets Radio. Flanders is the older sister of the Clinton administration speechwriter Stephanie Flanders and is the niece of neo-Marxist CounterPunch Editor Alexander Cockburn.
 
* * *
 
[FAIR doesn't exactly sound fair. In fact, it sounds like a huge echo chamber for the left. And they had something to critical to say about Fox News Special Report? Say it ain't so.]
 
Micahel Dolan Added Apr 1, 2017 - 10:25am
What and Who are responsible for the collapse of America?
Corrupt Politicians that sit in any city-town-and those who have control of our daily living. IRS is a partisan criminal agency that works for the democrat party.
Trump has put fear into the corrupt politicians and they want to destroy him.Hillary Clinton a life long corrupt life with her corrupt Bill.
Now we see the real hatred being shown.Chuck U Schumer and other demon/crats are huge losers and they will stop at nothing in order to save their corrupt earnings and keep their golden chariot seat to keep their golden-goose life time paychecks-taken from you and me.
States rights, send these weasels back to their states put them in an office and let them help that state, if they fail boot,,M.
Trump has put fear into the political process as it has been forever. Trump lets not abandon him.
If we abandon him- think Benghazi Foundation Hillary could become Americas leader- worse-Hussein Obama will bestow himself as president.
J. Riddle Added Apr 1, 2017 - 11:23am
"FAIR doesn't exactly sound fair."
 
I note that in all of that cut-and-pasting, you didn't come up with anything to make any case at all for that conclusion, though you certainly would have if you'd found anything. You could have saved yourself all that work and just said FAIR is a liberal group, something they make no effort to conceal.
 
FAIR is one of the best press critics in the U.S. You cite the fact that they're also critical of "liberal" outlets when merited as if it's some stain on their character, rather than an indication of seriousness. Unlike right-wing orgs like the Media Research Center and Accuracy In Media, they do actual press criticism. The data I cited about Special Report and Blitzer Reports came from a study of those shows' guest-lists. FAIR was extremely conservative in their classificiation methodology (to the point that Lou Dobbs wasn't classified as conservative), as usual. The rest is just math: Who appeared? And then add that up. Republicans outnumbered Democratic guests on both shows; that's who got to speak.
Peter Corey Added Apr 1, 2017 - 10:13pm
>I note that in all of that cut-and-pasting, you didn't come up with anything to make any case at all for that conclusion, though you certainly would have if you'd found anything.
 
I was hoping that my audience would be intelligent enough to arrive at that conclusion based on evidentiary statements, such as:
 
"As evidence for their claim that the establishment media were conservative, Cohen and FAIR cited as evidence the relatively scant coverage and few interviews the media gave to radicals."
 
FAIR believes that mainstream media are biased to the right because they rarely cover the lunatic fringe of far-left radicalism like that of Noam Chomsky and Helen Caldicott?
 
I don't think so. Neither do most people. Obviously, then, you are not part of the intelligent audience I had in mind when I posted previously.
 
And again,
 
"FAIR's Advisory Board target="_blank">includes actors target="_blank">Edward Asner, . journalists . . .  target="_blank">Barbara Ehrenreich. .  and feminists . . .  target="_blank">Gloria Steinem. Asner, Ehrenreich and Steinem are members of the target="_blank">Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which describes itself as "the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International."
 
FAIR believes the Socialist International speaks for the Democratic Party and that it deserves equal media coverage as the rank-and-file liberal, left-of-center in the U.S.? I don't think so. Neither do most people.
 
It's clear what's happened. You've moved so far left (and are so far gone in your abilities to critically distinguish among political ideas) that anything which is not on the radical, far left, is simply damned as "conservative."
 
The only people who believe this are other clan members of the radical, far left ilk to whom you are preaching. I believe this satisfies at least one important criterion of the phrase, "echo chamber."
 
J. Riddle Added Apr 1, 2017 - 11:11pm
"I was hoping that my audience would be intelligent enough"
 
And that ad hominem bullshit doesn't make any case for your conclusion either.
 
"FAIR believes that mainstream media are biased to the right because they rarely cover the lunatic fringe of far-left radicalism like that of Noam Chomsky"
 
Chomsky isn't "lunatic fringe" anything; he's just a radical. He's also one of the best commentators on international affairs in the world but he's ignored by the corporate press in his own country while protofascists--people who are lunatic fringe characters--are given time. FAIR argues for democratizing the media, opening it up to a wider spectrum of views.
 
"FAIR believes the Socialist International speaks for the Democratic Party and that it deserves equal media coverage as the rank-and-file liberal, left-of-center in the U.S.?"
 
And just to prove that, you'll now point to the FAIR article wherein one of their writers makes that case, right? I know you wouldn't want people to think you're just making up a bunch of shit, so instead of more of this nonsense, I'm sure your next post will have that link.
 
And while you're at it, let's also have that dissection of FAIR's survey of Special Report and Wolf Blitzer Reports, that thing you're trying to bat down with all this squid's ink and ad hominem crap without ever actually addressing. Can't wait for that!
Peter Corey Added Apr 2, 2017 - 2:36am
>And that ad hominem bullshit doesn't make any case for your conclusion either.
 
I wasn't making a case for my conclusion by pointing out that you're a dolt. I was making a case for my premise.
 
>Chomsky isn't "lunatic fringe" anything;
 
Yes he is. He's a lunatic in his specialty of linguistics (as a number of academics have convincingly claimed), and he's a lunatic in his non-specialties of politics, economics, and history. In sum, he's a lunatic plain and simple.
 
>he's just a radical. 
 
No, he isn't. He's a poseur
 
According to linguistics professor Frederick Newmeyer ("The Politics of Linguistics"), Chomsky had been working with several other academics at M.I.T. in the 1950s on a joint military contract to build machines that could operate weapons systems by means of voice-command. That was the original impetus for his theories on generative grammar. When his work came to nothing, the military ended the contract and cut off his funding. Interestingly, that's exactly the time he outed himself as "anti-military" and later, "anti-America" (not to mention "anti-allies-of-America", especially Israel). That was also the time his notion of machine-language interfacing with human language was "repurposed" as a general theory of "transformational grammar".
 
His posing as a "radical lefty" came about as a result of the failure of his early work at MIT for the military. It was all sour grapes.
 
Philosophically and historically, his notions of hard-wired knowledge about grammatical categories (parts of speech; syntactic connections) are simply a modernization of Plato's notion of "Innate Ideas," long ago debunked.
 
In a famous interview with Chomsky by Ved Mehta in The New Yorker ("John Is Easy To Please", 1971), Mehta asked Chomsky about his theory of innate grammatical knowledge, as well as Chomsky's insistence that linguistics is a true, quantitative science, just like physics and chemistry. Paraphrasing, "Physics, chemistry, and other quantitative sciences ultimately rely on experiments to prove or disprove their theories. Have you performed any experiments to prove or disprove your theories on innate grammatical structures in the human brain?" To which Chomsky replied, laughing, "I hate experiments!"
 
He hates experiments yet claims his beliefs on grammar should be accepted by others with the same confidence as the empirically verified experimental results in sciences like physics and chemistry? I don't think so. Chomsky has always been a bullshitter in his own field, just as he became a bullshitter in politics, economics, and history.
 
Chomsky also went out of his way to write a positive introduction for a book by anti-Semite and Holocaust denier, Robert Faurisson, calling him a "liberal." He also signed a petition supporting Faurisson's statements on Holocaust denial, calling them "findings".
 
>He's also one of the best commentators on international affairs in the world 
 
It depends on how we define the word "best." Chomsky either outright approves of, or is an apologist for, Hamas, Hezbollah, Osama bin Laden, Khmer Rouge, the former Soviet Union, and former Maoist China. He denied the 2 million+ genocide in Cambodia by Pol Pot (first claiming it must have been a rice crop failure) and when evidence became overwhelming, he denied that he had ever denied it, and simply apologized for it by saying that whatever happened in Cambodia under the Pol Pot regime, it obviously was the fault of the United States.
 
That's not an example of someone who is one of the "best commentator on international affairs in the world"; that's the thought process of a lunatic posing as a deep thinker. Chomsky is essentially the L. Ron Hubbard of academia — a cult leader — and you, obviously, are a loyal and zealous cult member. Congratulations.
 
Bill Caciene Added Apr 2, 2017 - 7:06pm
Nexist
You’ve provided nothing by way of proof that our current conservative leadership is “neoconservative.” You’ve also provided no proof that our current conservative leadership is “pro-war.” You’re just uttering cheap insults. Unless you name names and then provide evidence by way of quotes or actions all you’re doing is slinging insults.   Can you even identify a single Republican that self-identifies as a neo-conservative?
 
As it relates to Russia invasion and annexation of Crimea, let’s get the facts straight. Ukraine has been a sovereign nation for more than two decades and Crimea is a geographic region in the Ukraine.  The Ukrainian revolution was not of our making, but even if it was, that does not give the Russians the right to take over Crimea by gunpoint.
 
I’m curious to know, how much more territory would you be OK with Russia taking back?  Do you feel they’re justified in taking the rest of the Ukraine?  How about Estonia?  I hear there are some pro-Russian sections of America, should Russia feel entitled to those areas too? Should Mexico take over Texas, seeing the land used to be Mexico's?
Jeffry Gilbert Added Apr 3, 2017 - 12:31am
As it relates to Russia invasion and annexation of Crimea, let’s get the facts straight. Ukraine has been a sovereign nation for more than two decades and Crimea is a geographic region in the Ukraine.  The Ukrainian revolution was not of our making, but even if it was, that does not give the Russians the right to take over Crimea by gunpoint.
 
Russia did not invade and annex Crimea. The Ukrainian revolution was in fact of DUHmerican making. Russia did not "take over" Crimea by gun point. 
 
Ukraine Annexed Crimea in the 1990s
Something else “our” government and its media whores did not tell us is that under the Crimean Constitution of 1992, Crimea existed as a legal, democratic, secular state. Crimea’s relationship with Ukraine was based on bilateral agreements. In 1995 Ukrainian special ops forces and Ukrainian Army troops invaded Crimea and annexed the territory.
Here is the report from Arina Tsukanova: target="_blank">http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/03/28/so-who-annexed-crimea-peninsular-then.html
The Autonomous Republic of Crimea was established by the 1991 All-Union Referendum in which 94% of Crimeans voted in favor of re-establishing their status as an autonomous republic. Crimeans repeated the vote in 2014 by an even higher percentage, and this time prevented another Ukrainian invasion by reuniting with Russia.
Why didn’t you know this? Why instead do you hear nothing but lies about a “Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea”?
 
Can you even identify a single Republican that self-identifies as a neo-conservative?
 


target="_blank">Michael Bloomberg, former mayor of New York
John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to UN.
Robert Gates, Obama and George W. Bush’s secretary of defense, George HW Bush’s CIA director.
Bobby Inman
target="_blank">Henry Kissinger, Richard Nixon’s secretary of state.
target="_blank">Charles Krauthammer, columnist & political commentator.
Robert McFarlane, Reagan’s national security adviser.
Peggy Noonan, former speechwriter for George HW Bush.
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform that opposes all tax increases; co-founder of the Islamic Free Market Institute.
Colin Powell, former George W. Bush secretary of state; retired general.
Condoleezza Rice, George W. Bush’s secretary of state.
Brent Scowcroft, retired USAF Lt. Gen., adviser on national security to Presidents Ford, GHW Bush, GW Bush & Obama.

Just to name a few. Do your own research to broaden your understanding. 
 
You're not doing yourself any favors with this nonsense in your highlighted comment Caciene. 
Nexist Xenda'ths Added Apr 3, 2017 - 2:01am
Bill: Re: Neoconservatives http://bfy.tw/B0NC
 
Re: Crimea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea

As for the rest, Russia has pretty consistently moved to protect Russian citizens. Crimea was special due to the military importance it held. Normally, they go in and beat up the people oppressing the local Russians and then back off, sometimes leaving a force to assist the locals (e.g. Georgia). It will be noted that despite appeals by Eastern Ukrainian territories or South Ossetia, Russia has not annexed them.
 
Texas and California were taken as a spoils of war. A better example would be how we are always reneging on our treaties with the Native Americans. There are differences though, we took back the NA land even though they had not staged a coup d'etat and ran out the legal government. Russia only took back Crimea after it became apparent that they would be losing an important military base. Note that it is questionable whether or not the Crimeans were forced into joining Russia and it seems that the Crimeans have a better time of it than the Ukrainians.
 
Personally, I favor individual autonomy. Let the people who want to be a part of Russia be a part of Russia. Let those who want to be a part of the Ukraine be a part of the Ukraine. If a state wants to leave the US, let it leave the US. I actually believe in all that Liberty and Individuality stuff.
Nexist Xenda'ths Added Apr 3, 2017 - 2:03am
Bill: Sorry, the links didn't work...

Re: Neoconservatives http://bfy.tw/B0NC
 
Re: Crimea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea
Bill Caciene Added Apr 3, 2017 - 9:49am
Nexist
Your links still don’t work. 
 
I always find these comment threads interesting in how quickly the discussion has nothing to do with the content of the article.  We should probably have ended this discussion long ago (as in back when we largely agreed) for that reason but seeing you’re the only one still commenting, why not continue.  I also enjoy reading your comments as they are well-written and articulated, but we disagree big-time as it relates to Russia. 
 
“As for the rest, Russia has pretty consistently moved to protect Russian citizens.”
 
In other words, Russia is justified in invading and annexing sovereign nations if it believes said invasion protects Russian citizens?  Based on that logic, one could argue Russia should invade and annex every country on the planet.
 
“It will be noted that despite appeals by Eastern Ukrainian territories or South Ossetia, Russia has not annexed them.”
 
In other words, that’s like saying that bank robber isn’t so bad, think of all the banks he didn’t rob.
 
“Russia only took back Crimea after it became apparent that they would be losing an important military base.”
 
Russia does not have the right (unless they invade and annex) to determine how another country chooses exist. 
 
“Let the people who want to be a part of Russia be a part of Russia. Let those who want to be a part of the Ukraine be a part of the Ukraine. If a state wants to leave the US, let it leave the US. I actually believe in all that Liberty and Individuality stuff.”
 
So assume say the Ukrainian government doesn’t agree with you (any government for that matter), what happens next?  Does Russia have the right to invade and annex?  Should the state of California decide to secede from our union, would you condone foreign military involvement in assisting them? 
Jeffry Gilbert Added Apr 3, 2017 - 9:57am
Should the state of California decide to secede from our union, would you condone foreign military involvement in assisting them? 
 
Yes indeed! What's good for the goose is good for the gander. About time DUHmerica get some of its own medicine and chokes on it.
 
ANYTHING to hasten the unequivocal collapse of the biggest warmongering terrorist regime to ever infect the planet - DUHmerica. 
Nexist Xenda'ths Added Apr 3, 2017 - 10:35am
Bill:
 
It is strange that they don't work. You can always cut and paste.
 
I believe there is a law of the internet about any comment thread going on for more than a fay or so being divorced from teh original topic.
 
Let us be clear, Russia did not invade and occupy a sovereign nation. It occupied an autonomous territory of another region (as NATO did with Kosovo). 
 
Can you explain how that portion of the argument can be used to "argue Russia should invade and annex every country on the planet."
 
Russia does not have the right (unless they invade and annex) to determine how another country chooses exist. 
 
That is why they held a referendum. That is more than the people of the Ukraine got.
 
So assume say the Ukrainian government doesn’t agree with you (any government for that matter), what happens next?
 
The basic premise of American (& Western) government is the will of the people. Any government that fails to respect this is invalid. Thus if the Ukrainian government disagrees with the will of its people, it shows itself as a totalitarian, authoritarian regime.
 
Should the state of California decide to secede from our union, would you condone foreign military involvement in assisting them?
 
I would support their decision to leave. If they chose to ally themselves with another power, that is their choice.
Bill Caciene Added Apr 3, 2017 - 10:36am
Jeffry
Who/what is “DUHmerica?”
Jeffry Gilbert Added Apr 3, 2017 - 10:43am
Who/what is “DUHmerica?”
 
Were you born obtuse or did you work at it your whole life Caciene? Either way it worked out fine because you're obtuse tonight!
 
DUHmerica is the country you inhabit and DUHmericans are the 99.825% of the people who live there. Much of the time your articles and comments place you squarely in the greater percentage. 
 
One notices you choose to pick nit rather than acknowledge my detailed verifiable rebuttal above. A trait rather typical of many so-called conservatives. 
 
This article and your proves you're anything but a true conservative.
Bill Caciene Added Apr 3, 2017 - 10:46am
Jeffry
I refuse to waste any of my time with someone that slings insults as freely as you. 
Jeffry Gilbert Added Apr 3, 2017 - 10:50am
I refuse to waste any of my time with someone that slings insults as freely as you. 
 
Nah, you just don't have the balls to admit you're wrong about Crimea and neo-cons. Have a great DUHmerican day, off you go now mind the gap between train and platform. BUH-Bye.
Bill Caciene Added Apr 3, 2017 - 10:54am
Jeffry
As seen by the comment thread above, I’ll enter in discussion with everyone but bigots and those that resort to ad hominem attack.  Thanks for leaving my thread. 
Jeffry Gilbert Added Apr 3, 2017 - 10:57am
As seen by the comment thread above you have no intention to address the facts I presented because they are irrefutable. You hide behind and use feigned superiority because I hurt your feelings. 
 
Sad. So. Damn. Sad. 
Bill Caciene Added Apr 3, 2017 - 11:05am
Jeffry
I thought you said you we’re leaving? For the record, I choose not to communicate with you because you’re an asshole...DUH. 
Jeffry Gilbert Added Apr 3, 2017 - 11:09am
I choose not to communicate with you because you’re an asshole
 
That may or may not be Caciene but one thing is certain you can't refute the facts I presented and you're too weak to admit you're wrong. 
Bill Caciene Added Apr 3, 2017 - 1:12pm
Nexist
Let us be clear, Russia did not invade and occupy a sovereign nation. It occupied an autonomous territory of another region (as NATO did with Kosovo).
 
Linked below is a Washington Post article supporting my assertion that Crimea was a geographic region within the Ukraine that Russia annexed.  To the extent you still question this very basic and obvious fact, I don’t wish to continue this discussion.  Scratch that, if you were to provide a link supporting your assertion, I’d be interested in seeing it. 
 
This map shows what the loss of Crimea really means for Ukraine
 
By the way, how do you explain the global condemnation of Russia's actions in the region if your opinion is correct?
Nexist Xenda'ths Added Apr 3, 2017 - 8:12pm
I did provide a link. However, you can type "Crimea" into wikipedia and get a quick breakdown of the centuries of Russian Rule prior to it being given as a gift of "friendship". As for the Washington Post article, all that it really shows is how stupid the coup was.
 
By the way, how do you explain the global condemnation of Russia's actions in the region if your opinion is correct?
 
I am not sure why you think they are related or even should be. However, the condemnation is fairly straightforward, the Coup in the Ukraine was an attempt by the West to pry the Ukraine from Russia's influence and subjugate it to the West/EU/NATO. Russia, obviously, isn't to keen on this idea. Their refusal to make it easy is thwarting us in our righteous crusade, so we tell them how bad they are.
 
Though I question the use of the word "World" in that statement. I haven't seen anything on the Chinese news sites. It's pretty much NATO/EU and various hanger-ons who are upset.

Finally, I should point out that what everybody says/knows type of arguments are a logical fallacy (a subtype of the Appeal to Authority)
Bill Caciene Added Apr 4, 2017 - 10:53am
Nexist
I’m well aware you have all sorts of arguments why Russia is justified and the west is all wrong.  But at this point in the discussion, I’m interested in the two of us agreeing on the most basic of facts first.  You wrote:
 
Let us be clear, Russia did not invade and occupy a sovereign nation. It occupied an autonomous territory of another region (as NATO did with Kosovo).
 
Typing Crimea into Wikipedia clearly shows that it was a geographic region of the Ukraine for the last 20+ years.  It also clearly shows that the area was invaded and annexed by Russia.  Russia even held a vote at gunpoint to show the world that the territory is now theirs.  If it was already Russian territory, why hold a vote? 
Nexist Xenda'ths Added Apr 4, 2017 - 12:25pm
Bill: The linchpin of the disagreement is "sovereign nation". Crimea was an autonomous region of the Ukraine, similar to Kosovo's relationship with Serbia. While the vote may have been called by Russia after occupying the province, there is little evidence that the secession from Ukraine was contrary to the majority will of the people of Crimea. This isn't really surprising, since Centuries of identifying as "Russian" is hard to undo after only a few decades. It is also not surprising if you compare and contrast the two governments. Russia is far more stable and less xenophobic than the Ukraine. It is also (arguably) less corrupt. Both could be called authoritarian, however Russia constrains its authoritarianism within its legal framework (arguably more so than the US does). Ukraine is still raw and bloody from its coup, so its authoritarianism is still "the law of force rather than the force of law" (as one of my history professors liked to phrase it).
 
So, where do you want to take this from here?
Bill Caciene Added Apr 5, 2017 - 8:36am
Nexist
For the third time, I’m not interested in your arguments for why Russia was justified in annexing Crimea.  My sole interest in continuing to chat is to establish some facts that the two of us can agree on.  You think Russia didn’t invade and annex a geographic region of a sovereign nation and I think that Russia did.  I more than think it, I assert it’s a fact. 
 
The following is the Wikipedia’s definition of autonomous region: is a subdivision or dependent territory of a country that has a degree of self-governance. 
 
As seen by the definition above or any map following Russia’s break-up and before Ukraine was invaded, Crimea is in the Ukraine.  All geographic regions on every map have some degree of autonomy from central government, Crimea and Kosovo being no different.  But just for giggles, let’s assume Crimea was completely autonomous (yet not its own country), how does that change the fact I’m trying to establish?  In other words, part of the Ukraine or not, the Crimean Peninsula was invaded by Russian troops who then promptly annexed it so that it’s now Russian territory.    
Nexist Xenda'ths Added Apr 5, 2017 - 10:37am
You've just changed your assertion and I can now agree with it, since it now matches the facts.
 
Now we just need you to recognize the fact that acknowledging and recognizing the reasons for an action, even understanding the legitimacy of the concerns which led to that action, is not the same as justifying or condoning.
 
Since I believe in a people's right to self-determination, the only concern I have is for how well the plebiscite reflected the actual desires of the majority of Crimeans. Given the behavior of the Crimeans before, during, and after the vote, my gut assumption is that the majority of Crimeans are content to be a territory of Russia.
 
I am more concerned with US actions (since that is where I live & the US government is my representative). We fomented a revolution in the Ukraine via NGOs (which is well documented) whereby a minority staged a coup against an admittedly corrupt but legal government that has plunged the region into a civil war. That is far more interesting to me since we supposedly have influence over our own government. Moral outrage against Russia may feel good, but it is ultimately pointless. We don't have control over its actions and policies.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Apr 5, 2017 - 11:24am
Nexist, no matter how many times you try to convince him white is in fact white he's going to emulate Robin Williams' character Mork and neener neener neener you.
 
Points and atta boys awarded for your determination however. 
Bill Caciene Added Apr 5, 2017 - 1:28pm
Nexist
I changed my assertion?  I stated that Russia invaded the Ukraine and annexed by gunpoint a geographic area within the Ukraine.  Do you agree with that fact now?
Dr. Rupert Green Added Apr 5, 2017 - 4:27pm
Good read, Bill.  Some subtly bring up their disgust for abortion by framing it as historical analysis. It is interesting how all these religious and mighty and powerful are fleeing from a discussion on homosexuality, yet are quick to attack Roe, which has been settled by the courts all these years. I wonder if its woman hating. These righteous men, cheating on their wives with a poor uneducated and sweet fucking women, promise the women they would withdraw, but instead clings on when cumming into maam.
Nexist Xenda'ths Added Apr 5, 2017 - 11:51pm
Bill: Yes, you changed your assertion. I just reviewed your comments. You clearly stated that "Russia that invaded and annexed at gun point a sovereign nation." which I disagreed with. When you changed it with the statement "You think Russia didn’t invade and annex a geographic region of a sovereign nation and I think that Russia did." I could agree with you because that is what happened.

I have always agreed with that fact, since it is, well, a fact.
 
There isn't much we (as in the USA) can say against it, since we set that precedent with Kosovo. I've always subscribed to the idea that "If it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander." 
Bill Caciene Added Apr 6, 2017 - 9:01am
Nexist
Now I think you’re just trying to get under my skin for the fun of it or aren’t an English speaker.  Nice chatting but I think I’m done.
  
Rupert
I have no idea the relevance of abortion on the topic or my article or as it relates to my conversation with Nexist.  Thanks for the compliment though.
Nexist Xenda'ths Added Apr 6, 2017 - 10:54am
Bill: Actually, neither were the case -- but as you will. Specificity is important. It isn't my fault that you got worked up over a semantic error on your part. Failure to be clear is the basis of many logical fallacies. Failing to set up definitions before hand leads to a whole slew of logical errors.
Thomas Napers Added Apr 7, 2017 - 8:19am
Interesting dialogue about Russia in an article about the conservative position on social issues. For the record, I thought Bill was rather clear about Russia and the failure to grasp what he’s trying to say was Nexist related.  I also agree, Crimea is in the Ukraine so when Crimea was invaded it was the equivalence of invading the Ukraine.  It would be like America claiming it didn’t bomb Syria it bombed the Shayrat Air Base. 
Nexist Xenda'ths Added Apr 7, 2017 - 7:02pm
Thomas: They did not annex a sovereign nation.
 
Btw, we are claiming to have just bombed the Shayrat Air Base. Despite the fact that we have little in the way of proof that the legal sovereign government of Syria actually used chemical weapons. Doubly strange is that chemical attacks that we can attribute have come from the rebels (primarily ISIS).
Thomas Sutrina Added Apr 11, 2017 - 1:34pm
Nexist X, actually we have absolute proof that the poison gas bombs came from the Shayrat Air Base.  We have satellite movie or very close spaced pictures showing the planes taking off.  Flying over the drop zone, circling over the drop zone, and returning to the air base.  Now we have not information on who ordered the bombing and who flew the bombing.  I believe we know that this was the base that poison gas was stored back in 2013.  The plans for the cruise missile attack was drawn up in 2013 also.  So Nexist the military planes are either piloted by Syrian or Russian airmen.
Bill Caciene Added Apr 11, 2017 - 11:23pm
Thomas
If Nexist won’t accept the fact Russia invaded and annexed a portion of a sovereign nation, what makes you think she’ll accept any facts presented to her?
Nexist Xenda'ths Added Apr 12, 2017 - 1:09am
Thomas: No. We have evidence that a plane dropped a bomb. We do not know if the bomb was conventional or chemical. Either provided narrative could be true. For some reason, Assad could have ordered a totally gratuitous attack that would be sure to reverse all of the political gains he had made. It is also totally plausible that the strike hit a warehouse where the rebels, who are known to have used chemical weapons, were storing their supply. Another narrative is that it could be an attack orchestrated by the rebels to shift America back to opposing Assad -- which is supported by ISIS being on record celebrating the strike against Assad. 

The problem is that you don't focus on all of the details. You seem to be latching on the narrative promoted by the mainstream media (even though they are typically derided as being Liberal).
Nexist Xenda'ths Added Apr 12, 2017 - 1:12am
Bill: That is kind of funny, since that is exactly what I accepted. Once you changed your assertion from annexing a "sovereign nation" to merely annexing Crimea, I agreed. I agree with facts, not hyperbole. Exaggeration and sloppiness in details leads to mistakes.
Thomas Sutrina Added Apr 12, 2017 - 9:14am
Nexist, in 2013 Obama and Putin signed an agreement that Putin, Russia would remove all chemical weapon from Syria.   Did not happen.  Who else would have chemical weapons but Hasad?  Not the rebels.  By elimination it is clear Nexist so do all the spinning you want but the other readers will not be as foolish as you.
Nexist Xenda'ths Added Apr 12, 2017 - 10:25am
Thomas: Yes,in 2013, an agreement was signed. The UN oversaw the destruction of several tons of Chemical Weapons. It was assessed at the time that this was all Chemical Weapons under Assad's control. Unfortunately, we had been provoking a civil war for some time and several stockpiles had fallen into rebel hands. Also, ISIS has factories that can make the stuff. Both of these are documented, as are the Syrian rebels use of Chemical Weapons in attacks. Whether you choose to believe or not, facts are facts.
 
You are entitled to your own beliefs, but not your own facts. Google is a wonderful resource, but the facts may be buried under a deluge of more recent propaganda.

Recent Articles by Writers Bill Caciene follows.