Terrible time to be a Publican eh? Whoops, no, sorry, that's got something to do with your economy...

...what I meant to say was:

Terrible time to be a Republican!

Eh?

<edit> Actually, the Publicans are probably doin' just fine considering: the amount of folks trying to drink away their troubles usually spikes during any economic low points (lower case g-o-d knows it's what I do!)

Yes, terrible time to be a Republican, but a great time to be a conservative. Why can't Republican's see anymore that to win the election you must run as a conservative? We keep losing because we put guys up there that want to make everyone like them, instead of what we really want to see, which is people who will stand up for conservative principles even if it seems unpopular in the media. McCain only cares what the media thinks of him, which means he might as well be a Democrat. I'm a Republican, but it would be like crossing party lines to vote for McCain. It'll really just be a vote against Hillary or Obama.

Maybe you could elaborate upon how it's a great time to be a conservative. From the sounds of it, even if you win (the Republicans that is), you lose?

Don't worry, I won't call you a fascist... I promise.

It is good to be conservative in some respects. Nature, for instance, needs to be conserved. But I don't think that was what you were talking about, were you, Chaos?

I would also like to know in which areas you think conservativism to be a good thing.

Paraphrasing something I saw on bash.org: "If you vote for Obama, you're sexist. If you vote for Hilary, you're racist. And if you vote for McCain, you're still voting Democrat..."

Haha, MSKanaka, I heard that, too. Toshiro, I am actually all for conserving the environment. It's a myth that Republicans hate the Earth just because some of us don't fall for the global warming scare (I've found some good stuff in between my busy week, I'll post it when I get a chance). It's not what I meant in that case, but it's still appropriate.

What I mean by "good time to be a conservative" is because conservativism wins elections. It's how Democrats won congress, by shutting up their crazies for a few months so people vote for a few conservative Democrats to give them a majority. Republicans would immediately rally behind a real conservative, and that person would win this election easily.

I didn't mean to insinuate that you were deliberately destroying the environment, if that was how it came across. Global warming is still largely unresearched, in my experience, since we have no first-hand data to work with, so predictions will keep being non-verifiable and are little more than opinions, although well-thought out and based on fact.

That said, thanks for elaborating; I think I understand what you meant now.

As a fat white Republican "Conservative", I'd like to say that I believe in global warming. It's eventually BAD to be pouring carbon into our atmosphere. However, it's not as bad as crippling our manufacturing, industrial, and power-generation bases. I say that it's more important to save the U.S. economy than worry about greenhouse gases.

There needs to be a balance struck between environmental protection and business concerns. In today's global economy, if you pass enough laws that make it more and more difficult to conduct business, then those businesses will just move all those jobs overseas or over-the-border. The United States has lost much of its previous manufacturing capability, and it's my opinion that "making things" is part of what made this country great. Now, it's making other countries great.

I'm sure that there's a win-win solution for global warming, but all the recent activity in the United States is pointing toward more regulation, more restriction, and more financial penalties. That trend needs to be halted or reversed. Let's build nuclear plants, let's drill in ANWR, let's put an end to this ethanol lunacy.

Meanwhile, countries in Asia, Africa and South America grow exponentially with almost no controls on their environmental output.

And, toshiro, as far as being "conservative", it is essentially a Republican platform, but the conservative movement has some key mantras:

* "morality" - anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage etc.

* fiscal responsibility - lower taxes or holding the line on taxes

* "smaller government" - providing less services, making people more self-sufficient

* aggressive foreign policy - power projection, saber rattling, "big-stick" diplomacy

* anti-wealth redistribution - against the idea of penalizing successful people or companies just because they are successful

* anti-immigration - This one is kind of recent, but most conservatives appear to lean toward rounding up all the illegals, building a wall on our southern border, and throwing them back over it.[/ul]

So, Butters (I mean Professor Chaos) has a point - we don't really have a conservative candidate. Hillary and Obama pretty much come down AGAINST all of the issues above, the next president (McCain) only supports the fiscal responsibility principle of conservatism, and the current president appears to only be halfway there.

Personally, my views are not directly in-line with the conservative movement, either:

I could care less about illegal immigrants - I say we streamline the entry process, issue social security numbers and drivers licenses to all of them, make sure they have a sponsor or a job before they come in, and make them pay taxes like everyone else. They lose their job in the first 2 years of US residence, back over the border they go.

I'm actually pro-abortion and birth control, and could care less about gay couples claiming a marriage tax credit.

As far as the other stuff: fiscal responsibility, smaller government, aggressive foreign policy, and anti-wealth redistribution, I'm solidly behind that.

I'm for gun owner's rights, I guess that's conservative, even though all Americans should be pro-second-amendment.

I'm also STRONGLY for less religion and more science in politics. Watching Clinton and Bush make political decisions regarding science has been... painful. Nevermind that mass of idiocy we call Congress.

So, I'm still following the election, and when McCain becomes president, at least I can look forward to sounder fiscal policies, and we can reverse some of the DISASTROUS overspending approved by congress in the last 8 years.

Once again, I mostly agree. It's nice to know there's another conservative here.

I believe in global warming. I also believe in global cooling, the big scare of the 70s. I don't believe that man can possibly make any noticeable effect on the global environment. Other than being the new socialist excuse to control people, the biggest danger of global warming is politicizing the environment. It makes one side swallow any environmental claim without thinking, and the other side (I have to constantly fight this, so I know first-hand how dangerous this can be) becomes overly skeptical, and real environmental problems are eclipsed by imaginary ones. It is the Sun, not CO2, that drives the global environment. Our anti-business policies, as Leber said, drive companies overseas, where they are allowed to pollute much more than they would have here. U.S. wants to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico? Evil! Mexico wants to drill for the same oil? You never hear outcry about that, and they will be less environmentally conscious.

There's a saying: "If you want to get rid of Democrats, legalize abortion and gay marriage." I am very strongly anti-abortion, but I'm not sure I have a political opinion on gay marriage. I believe it's morally wrong, but I believe everyone has the right to choose, and if it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights, it shouldn't be a crime.

I am one of the few conservatives I know that doesn't mind that Bush (and others previously) gave amnesty to illegal immigrants. If we fix taxes in general, the "illegals don't pay taxes" thing will be a moot point. We need to streamline the process and keep a tighter eye on it at the same time, but welcome them. I know of no Republicans that are anti-immigration, just anti-illegal immigration. The point that gets lost in the debate is that it is as much for their protection as for national security, because it is easy to exploit an illegal immigrant. It's just like when Mexico took Texas back way back when, and made slavery illegal, so Texans hired their slaves as "indentured servants," made them sign contracts they couldn't read, and went on as normal. We don't want that.

"Aggressive foreign policy:" If the world knows that the consequences of attacking the U.S. will be extreme and immediate, they won't do it, and we won't have to attack people very often. It is a sad truth that it is civilian casualties, not military ones, that win a war. That's why I'm always amazed that good guys ever win.

I don't think McCain will be any more fiscally responsible than Bush. Bush signed practically all the spending congress passed, including the energy bill trap they laid for him, but McCain will spend billions and billions on measures to "fight" global warming; measures that are never in the fine print guaranteed to have any effect, but always tighten government's control over our lives, which is what the movement is all about these days. Also, global warming has become a religion of it's own, with it's own beliefs in the face of fact, separated into "believers" and "deniers," or "heretics." I'd love to reverse some of the disastrous spending congress has passed in the last 20+ years, but it won't happen within the next couple presidencies. We won't improve until we hit rock bottom, and we're not there yet. I just hope it doesn't destroy us.

EDIT: toshiro, I didn't take that as your meaning. Also, you are dead on. we don't know anything about global warming, yet we are spending billions of dollars on it. The two big global warming lies are: We have all the facts; and, There is a consensus. Neither is even close to true.

"* "morality" - anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage etc."
I don't think you'd be one to do so, but when I have debates with people, they consistently attack me and claim I have no morals, because I'm not religious. :(
Personally, I am dead set against abortion. I think it's stupid, and as much screwed up as the adoption and foster process may be, it should be made better (don't ask me how, this is one issue I haven't looked at much). With that said, I am still for the right for a woman to choose. I say educate the populace, and make it an incentive for a woman to place a child up for adoption. But don't outlaw it.

"* fiscal responsibility - lower taxes or holding the line on taxes"
Now there's just a differing opinion...I feel that some raised taxes improve our economy. I don't feel that supply-side economics does the job. Who knows? Maybe that system WAS beneficial to the budget surplus in the nineties, maybe it wasn't. I don't think we can say for sure.

"* "smaller government" - providing less services, making people more self-sufficient"
I generally want a government that is less intrusive, yes. I just don't feel like the current administration fits that.

"* aggressive foreign policy - power projection, saber rattling, "big-stick" diplomacy"
That's probably the biggest thing I have an issue with. Yes, we are the dominant power, even if we may be losing ground. That does not give us the right to act in our own interests. I have more of an isolationist mindset.

"* anti-wealth redistribution - against the idea of penalizing successful people or companies just because they are successful"
There, I personally don't believe that something like a progressive income tax on the rich is something like penalizing. I can honestly say that if I was making $1 million or more, I would be fine with paying a 50% tax. I truly would. What do I need to do with $500,000? I can still survive, very well, I'd say...

"* anti-immigration - This one is kind of recent, but most conservatives appear to lean toward rounding up all the illegals, building a wall on our southern border, and throwing them back over it."
As you said, the immigration process should be made so that people don't have to try to come into the country illegally. Make the process of naturalization a bit faster and more efficient. Give legal immigrants good status, while on a probationary period. The way I see it, some hard-working, honest people are coming into the country illegally because that's what is feasible to them. I think it's sad that that has to happen, and that the bad people overshadow the good.

shadowkhas: You're right, I wouldn't equate no religion with no morality. I know some people who are not religious and I can see why, and many people who use religion as a shield. There's a difference between people who are social members of a religion, and those who truly believe and act on their faith. Now a few brief responses to your post:

Abortion: Why does the woman get to choose, but no one asks the opinion of the unborn child? We don't know when to draw the line, what trimester or if it's "viable" or whatever, so I say play it safe and say life begins at conception. I say that a woman makes her choice when she acts in a way that risks pregnancy, and must live with the consequences of that choice. I also think that anyone who bombs an abortion clinic is a serious criminal.

Aggressive Foreign Policy: Isolationism got us Pearl Harbor and 9/11. We can either act or be acted upon, and I'm all for acting. Any nation that does not act in its own interests deserves to be destroyed. We are a suicidal superpower (I heard that term somewhere, and it is appropriate).

Wealth Redistribution: Even if you think it's fine for the rich to carry the burden (they do, by the way, even if their tax margins are lower, the Reagan tax cuts on the rich increased the rich's share of the burden), any time the government tries to regulate the economy, by taxes or any other way, they always fuck things up. For example, the profit cap idea on oil companies: If you can't make more than so much money, why go to the effort? It will result in gas shortages in the U.S., while oil companies sell their oil to China instead. Most people who are extremely rich own businesses and employ people. There is no such thing as a "corporate tax." Any tax on a corporation (any employer, for that matter) is passed down like any expense to the employees and consumers. Same with tax cuts, to stay competitive companies pass down the benefits in the form of higher wages (or more employees) and lower prices. Another example is insurance. Whenever government mandates insurance (or other service), prices skyrocket. As a result, the poor are covered by the government, the rich can still afford to pay out of pocket, but the middle class neither qualify for government help or fall into the group that can afford it. They get screwed. Get the government out, and let the market adjust itself naturally. It works for everyone.

Explain how isolationism, as opposed to meddlesome foreign policy, got you 9-11. Pearl Harbor kicked off some sixty-odd years of internationally intrusive U.S. government policy leading up to September 11th, 2001; policies that were anything but isolationist.

Explain (and I apologize for sounding like Michael Moore) how a nation that was responsible for the establishment/encouragment of the likes of Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and Augusto Pinochet (amongst many) could be considered an "Isolationist" Nation.

I'm sorry, I overgeneralized. We were keeping out of international stuff (mostly) before WWII, (even though we could have prevented WWII by rebuilding Germany after WWI, good thing we learned that lesson!) until we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. We weren't really being isolationists leading up to 9/11, but I should have said that isolationism would not have prevented it. The attack was unprovoked.

To Leber:

This is kind of funny... I think the same things as you with every point... except I like high taxes and an isolationist stance. (I would also like to see a much larger police force, but in conjunction with the government doing less. Sort of like, let the people use and abuse their rights, but make sure there's a solid back up plan. Unfortunately this wouldn't really work with corrupt cops, so for now I'll just agree with less government and maybe sometime in the far distant future we can have more police too).

Except I'm totally for Obama. Is this really a product of our few different ideals? I think not... I would chalk it up more to where/how we grew up and what we see as a good leader etc. But still very interesting to think about!

---

To Chaos:

Also regarding your completely false isolationist comment, it's not like the Japanese said "Hey look, the US isn't involved let's GET EM!" America would have been a target whether or not we were involved in global politics at the time.

You're right, we are a suicidal super power... abusing that power is making a lot of enemies.

On another note, I'm sure you've heard this before but you nicely skated over the issue in your opinion on abortion, but Mr. Chaos what if the woman is raped? "I say that a woman makes her choice when she acts in a way that risks pregnancy, and must live with the consequences of that choice." Unless you want to pull a handmaid's tale and blame her for trying to look attractive (which doesn't even explain all cases of rape), you'll need to revise your statement.

Also, if you're going to "play it safe" and say life begins with conception, then who's to say that each of a man's little happy swimmers isn't 'life'? They all have the potential to become a baby...so maybe whenever a guy gets kicked/hit in the balls we should charge the attacker with mass murder of infants. You're idea of just calling it "baby at conception" is even more arbitrary, going off attempted morality, than basing it on scientifically known and analyzed trimesters.

Wealth Redistribution: I'll agree that the more successful (or luckily born) shouldn't have to pay a price for their fortune, but I disagree with basing your point on the idea that "Any time the government tries to regulate the economy they always fuck things up." Is this really your best reason? The government also hasn't successfully stopped every single murder, so maybe they should just make it legal since they can't seem to outlaw it right?

---

To shadowkhas:

I'm confused on your stance on abortion...you say you're dead set against abortion but support a woman's right to choose? Does this mean that you personally would never be okay with having one (*cough cough*) but that it's okay for others too? I'm not going to pick you apart just a little curious as to what you meant :)

Smittens: Concerning Shadokhas' opinion on abortion: He's pro-choice. It's a common misconception that pro-choice means abortion over life; it doesn't. It means the choice is in the hands of the woman/family/couple/etc, and allows for their own beliefs on the issue to affect the outcome.

Unfortunately, just like the pro-life side, there are some fanatics that confuse the issue (abortion clinic murders for instance and certain activists in third world countries).

Snax: That's what I thought, and was pretty sure of by the time I clicked "Post" but when I first read it, the "Dead against abortion" set me thinking that he was going to be pro-life, and I guess my mind just didn't take in the rest of it :)

smittens: I'm in a hurry, maybe I'll reply in more detail later. Really quick:

Rape is a tough case. On the one hand, you're right, it isn't the girl's fault (even if she's a total slut and stupid enough to take a shortcut through a dark alley, it doesn't excuse rape). On the other hand, if she's pregnant, there's another life involved that is not consulted. I would accept a compromise that made rape the only exception, but then it would be abused. If that were the only way to get an abortion, I can guarantee "rape" accusations would go way up. As far as playing it safe, your straw man argument would result in all men being tried for murder very often, and women for every menstrual cycle. I draw the line at conception. Science doesn't know all it thinks it knows, and I say that coming from the perspective of a scientist (almost, I guess it doesn't count until I graduate :).

Quick example of the government fucking up the economy: Ethanol. The global warming scare gives the government the power to do a lot they shouldn't have the authority to do. Over an insufficiently studied, imaginary fear, the government has been mandating ethanol left and right. Farmers love it, there's big money to be had now in corn. On the other hand, the price of food is now directly tied to the price of gas, and on top of that we are literally burning tons of food. Is it helping? There's no proof ethanol noticeably reduces emissions (at least, there are conflicting studies), and it takes four gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. We are doing more damage to the environment, and a hell of a lot of damage to the economy by mandating ethanol. Who suffers the most? Try paying for food on a poor college student budget, or even worst, an impoverished family budget. Oh, right, the government can help; that'll raise prices even more, and if they cap the prices, that creates artificial demand without increasing supply, and there'll be shortages.

Your "no studies" claim is a load of FUD. If I wanted to go back into OmniFile (not that I would, thank gods I'm done with finals), I could find you hundreds of studies showing clear evidence of anthropogenic global warming. Every respectable scientist, every climatologist, every geophysicist, and pretty much everybody in the scientific community who knows how to read a chart understands that carbon dioxide levels are directly correlated with temperature increases, and also are caused by human beings.

Also, this is going to be my last post in this thread, because it's degenerated into the level of idiotic babblings between uneducated and underinformed mobs. Which may or may not include myself.

:-(

Rogue, speak for yourself.

Chaos,

I disagree with you about abortion, since I think that science has a more objective outlook on why, when and how than most other people who found it on belief. Science does not kow everything, but neither do we (who are not yet, or not at all, scientists).

As for fuel made from non-fossilic sources: It is not that easy. If you put in place a solid requirements list concerning sustainability and procurement, i.e. that the ethanol may not be produced using staple foods.

As for the food pricing, that does not only hinge on the production of fuel from food (or growing the raw materials on farmland previously used for food); that is not to say that it isn't an important factor, just not the only one. Another one would be, for instance, that in many of the countries afflicted by the increase in staple food prices (the effect being that a large portion of the world's population is no longer able to afford the food to nourish them at all, forget about education), there is either a very unstable form of government or a very corrupt one. This is quite the can of worms, though.

Regarding smittens' comment: "(I would also like to see a much larger police force, but in conjunction with the government doing less. Sort of like, let the people use and abuse their rights, but make sure there's a solid back up plan. Unfortunately this wouldn't really work with corrupt cops, so for now I'll just agree with less government and maybe sometime in the far distant future we can have more police too)."

That's how I feel about how our military should be. I'd be perfectly fien with a larger military, if we improved the art of intelligence gathering (but we have to face it, it'll never be 100% foolproof), and could work more or prevention of serious things that could happen.
But then that belief runs into another one of mine, where the government shouldn't intrude on normal peoples' civil liberties (wiretapping, etc.). If there's a good middle ground between those, that's what I'd be aiming for.