Comments on: WHY CONSERVATISM SUCKS RIGHT NOW

By: Right Wing Nut House » IT’S PAST TIME TO INOCULATE CONSERVATISM AGAINST THE BIRTHERS

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:56:23 +0000

[...] MUCH IS A HUMAN BEING WORTH? PERSONAL REFLECTIONS ON APOLLO 11 AND MAN’S PLACE IN THE COSMOS WHY CONSERVATISM SUCKS RIGHT NOW IS OBAMACARE DEAD IN THE WATER? THANKS FOR ALL THE FISH — AND THE CASH REFLECTIONS ON WALTER [...]

By: busboy33

busboy33 — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:07:20 +0000

Your Brother Jim said:

“But when Bush was accused of being a fascist (everyone’s favorite word for the person in power whom they don’t like), the left was calling for impeachment, not revolution. Last time I checked, that was the constitutional solution.”

THIS.

By: conservosnemesis

conservosnemesis — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 01:04:39 +0000

Get used to it conservatives, as your stupid party comes apart because you don’t have the mental capacity to change. Those few who don’t lose their mind may see the light and come around. Of course you can always go to tea parties and whine with all the other nut cases, or march on Washington with your future leader.Those who still have any common sense will place their vote elsewhere. Who wants to vote with the conservative crazies who have come out of the woodwork since Obama was elected.

By: dmarks

dmarks — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:17:32 +0000

If Sowell did indeed “opine” that, then he is definitely a loony-tune crank.

Your Brother: “And the curtailment and abuse of civil liberties under the last administration”

The only actual abuse of civil liberties was when Bush signed McCain-Feingold. And on that, he had bipartisan support.

By: feeblemind

feeblemind — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:44:16 +0000

In one of his columns earlier this year, Thomas Sowell opined that a military coup might be the last best hope for the USA. Do you think Sowell is some sort of looney tunes crank?

By: Snark

Snark — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:50:37 +0000

Brian Said @26:

‘I think it’s unfair for you the broadly defame popular conservatives, and state - without examples or evidence - that “pop-cons like Hannity, Beck, Coulter, and other conservative celebrities [are] mouthing some of this nonsense…”’

You want evidence?

http://lsori.blogspot.com/2009/07/sean-hannity.html
http://lsori.blogspot.com/2009/06/glenn-beck.html

There’s plenty more.

By: Your Brother Jim

Your Brother Jim — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:09:04 +0000

And the curtailment and abuse of civil liberties under the last administration would have roused them from their graves and made every damned one of them who voted for the Bill of Rights start acting like Tom Paine. But when Bush was accused of being a fascist (everyone’s favorite word for the person in power whom they don’t like), the left was calling for impeachment, not revolution. Last time I checked, that was the constitutional solution. That doesn’t matter to most of the reactionaries around here, but for the three or four sane and genuine conservative pundits still writing like Rick, the Robinsons and that ilk indeed make it hard to represent the classic American conservative ideas and values.

By: lawnorder

lawnorder — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:40:10 +0000

The difference between left and right nutcases is that we lefties were proved right beyond our wildest nightmares. Even in my most fevered rants against Bush I never dreamed he would destroy the US economy, lose two wars AND get the food safety (peanut butter anyone), environment, FEMA, teen pregnancy and every other thing royally ficked.

If we knew, we would have revolted. And we would have had a lot of company.

Your most deranged brothers on the right do have a point: A bad US President can really ruin a country. We just had a very effective reminder of this undeniable fact.

But rest assured, we gay-abortion-effete-atheist lefties aren’t in thrall of kings like you are. If we see our guy going south, we will abandon him. We don’t do worship well.

Thanks for proving my point about crazies on both the left and right. Every single thing you said about Bush is exaggerated hyperbole - everything. I just got finished chastizing Robinson for saying that Obama was destroying the economy. And here you come saying the same thing about Bush.

To repeat: One person or one administration cannot destroy a $14 trillion economy. It is beyond the physical laws to do so. Like the crash of 29 and the stagflation of the 70’s, it took many years and many different factors for those earth shaking events to unfold. It is nutzo to blame it on one person. What we’ve experienced has been decades in the making.

And since you already recognize Obama can do no wrong, I suggest you won’t even abandon him when his numbers are in the low 30’s after he gets rightly blamed for his own bad policies.

ed.

By: DoorHold

DoorHold — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:29:53 +0000

Forgive me if I repeat what’s been said (47 lengthy replies!). I do believe he has a point: The loss of personal liberty and the scope and breadth of government control in our time would shock the Founding Fathers, even though they KNEW it could happen and did their best to prevent it.

By: shredder

shredder — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:51:22 +0000

They should be made to explain Article I if they really think “limited = small.”

Article I (among other provisions) confers extraordinary powers on the federal government. Just go through the list. And they can quote the other writings of the Founders all they want, but there is no better clue to their intent than the actual text of the document itself.

Finally, it’s all well and good to thrash their revisionism, but we need to make the case affirmatively that the Founders intended a strong (albeit limited) federal government. Galbraith had it right: government is the only institution with enough power to stop the incipient corporate despotism pushed by the conservative movement.