Why Are Conservatives On The Attack?

[Dr. Shane]

So why are the conservatives all fired up and on the attack?

I think the answer is rather simple.

There is a Democrat in the White House and the Democrats control Congress.

Pretty much the same reason liberals were all fired up and on the attack during the Bush years.

The party in power gets criticized the most.

I wish the Democrats the best. I don't think they got elected because the people loved their ideology so much rather the people were sick and tired of the do-nothing Republicans and the Democrats were the only other option. So this is the Democrats chance to prove themselves. I want to be impressed. If they don't produce they are bound to lose power and the Republicans will be back.

[Gerr]

I did not vote during the last election. I've lost faith in the politicians.

The Dems want to spend money they don't have, and the Reps want to cut taxes

the gov't can't afford. So the debt grows, and grows, and grows, until we're

drowning in it.

[phkrause]

I have not had any faith in Politicians or politics for that matter since Kennedy was shot and LBJ took over.

pk

[Neil D]

So why are the conservatives all fired up and on the attack?

At the expense of running this lower than it already is, I think I can put a siscint answer together....although you may not like it...

conservatives have run out of ideas, and thier policies put us in this mess and now, they are crying foul.....

There you have it folks....Cut taxes and that will save the economy....we've heard that before....

[Dr. Shane]

The title of the thread is "Why Are Conservatives On The Attack?" Conservatives are not on the attack because they have run out of ideas. Conservatives have many ideas. Conservatives blame the Republicans for losing Congress because they did not advance conservative ideas.

[Bravus]

'Conservatives' (the modern, TV-generated kind) are on the attack because it is their nature.

[carolaa]

Yeah, they advanced neoconservative ideas that we are all really disgusted and sick of by now.

[Dr. Shane]

I agree that the Republican's neoconservative got them tossed out of office. The term "neoconservative" first started to described liberals that had moved to the right. These are liberals that support strong international action. Joe Lieberman would be a fine example of a neoconservative today. They are liberal when it comes to domestic issues but conservative on international issues.

Conservatives and neoconservatives are two separate and distinct groups. G.W. Bush was certainly a neoconservative and got much of the Congressional Republicans to follow his agenda. Today the neoconservatives are not on the attack. We hardly hear from them at all. The ones making all the waves are the conservatives - not the neoconservatives.

[Neil D]

I think that the standards for defining 'conservative' and 'neoconservative' have shifted. These two ideas have been merged into one with possibly neoconservative having one or two ideas that even the conservative will not entertain. Although at this time, I don't want to look and find them, as most of the conservative ideas have been tried and got us here.

Therefore, conservative talk radio is on the attack. Rush's "I want Obama to fail" is a good example. Lots of retoric but little on ideas to solve the problems we currently have inherited.

[Dr. Shane]

In the minds of many liberals they have merged the concepts of conservatives and neoconservatives but many of those same liberals never really understood the concept of a neoconservative to begin with. Neoconservatives are the "compassionate liberals". They favor many of the domestic programs that liberals do like food stamps, education, community grants, farm subsidies, etc. Yet they are tough on foreign policy and favor a big, strong military.

Conservatives on the other hand want to get rid of welfare programs for both the poor and corporate America - including farmers. They want to get rid of the department of education. They want to get rid of the IRS and go to a flat tax. The real conservative ones even think government should get out of the interstate highway business and let private enterprise run a system of toll roads. I think Rush Limbaugh would fit into that category. In their attack, conservatives like Limbaugh and Beck are not just attacking the liberals now in charge. They are also attacking the do-nothing neoconservatives that destroyed the Republicans party.

Quote:

Lots of rhetoric but little on ideas to solve the problems we currently have inherited.

This is the same criticism that Republicans used on Democrats when Republicans were in charge and Democrats were the critics. The "solutions" Republicans have will come up during the campaign in the next election. There is no point in bringing up their solutions now as they have no power.

[Dr. Shane]

BTW: the problems we (the American people) have inherited were caused by 1. the Federal Reserve, and 2. Washington politicians (Democrats & Republicans) doing what they do best - messing things up. Now we (the American people) are being asked to let them (the Federal Reserve and Washington politicians) to fix things. Does anyone else feel like the fox is in charge of the hen house?

[phkrause]

Now Shane that is the first logical think you have said! hahaha just kidding, but what you are saying is very true, and I agree with you.

pk

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Neoconservatives are the "compassionate liberals".

Just a clarification. That should read "Neoconservatives are the 'compassionate conservatives'." Sometimes my fingers work faster than my brain.

[there buster]

Neoconservative actually has a definition.

Norman Podhoretz, who was a liberal in the 60's, became a conservative in the 70's. He is/was editor of Commentary magazine. He defined neoconservative as "a liberal who was mugged by reality."

[jasd]

>>'Conservatives' (the modern, TV-generated kind) are on the attack because it is their nature.<<

Aw, gee shucks already... c'mon, is that to say that the Lefty loo-loos are more conservative than Conservatives?

[Neil D]

This is the same criticism that Republicans used on Democrats when Republicans were in charge and Democrats were the critics. The "solutions" Republicans have will come up during the campaign in the next election. There is no point in bringing up their solutions now as they have no power.

So let me get this straight.....The american people are suffering from loss of homes and higher prices, the loss of jobs, which strains the marriages, and tensions of the people....And the Republicans are or maybe setting on the true path out of this current economic wilderness and they are NOT sharing????

People are losing thier jobs and thier homes, Shane! This is NO time for partisian politics, this is time for action....and the Republicans are sitting on thier haunches and fighting ANY sort of recovery....Just so they can say, " WE are the correct party to govern america.!"

If that is the case, they are NOT a compassionate party. Rather they are more than self centered in this truely devestating time where people are losing jobs and home and savings and retirements.....And they deserve to be kept OUT of goverment.

[Dr. Shane]

Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin. The criticisms being made of the Republicans, including the above, were made of the Democrats. No difference in tactics. No moral superiority in either. It's politics and both play the game using the same set of rules. Indeed, the American people are the losers.

[jasd]

>>This is NO time for partisian politics, this is time for action....and the Republicans are sitting on thier haunches and fighting ANY sort of recovery....Just so they can say, " WE are the correct party to govern america.!"<<

Umm, reality-check: Obama’s uh-uh-uh ‘stimulus’ Bill emerged from the Democrat House – sans Republican input. Pelosi did not allow any ReBubbas to help draft the Bill, which would have put a bipartisan face on the Bill. The incredible thing is...

that the ‘transparent’, ‘ethical’ Leftist Party put the Bill on such a fast track as to preclude even members of its own party time to read the Bill. The Bill was passed by ignoramuses – and signed by, well...

What sort of cretin votes-off on a Bill he/she hasn’t even read!? THAT’S the sort of slack-jaws controlling our present Congress, folks!

That said, what attack?

[Woody]

The "rest of the story" is that after Bama pushed the bill so fast ... he sat on it delaying it for days before he could set up the PR signing of the bill in Denver.

All this push was ... just to get it passed before anyone could read what they were agreeing to.

The nation will be reading and suffering for decades.

[jasd]

>>Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin.<<

That would apply to the Moderate Republican, the RINO. That said,

the other side of the coin, its obverse, is less attractive... Hopefully,

there will still be an America after Obama. In the meantime or sometime-thereafter,

America will become as a bird that peepeth from the dust of the earth – its greatness dissipated and with all nations coming against it.

Mebbe, subsequent that – real ReBubbas, with the help of Gd, will put what’s left of our Country back on the right track.

That said, what attack? :-(

[jasd]

>>The nation will be reading and suffering for decades.<<

I wish to say...!

I don't know 'bout the "reading" part, but I'll give you odds on the "suffering" part.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

America will become as a bird that peepeth from the dust of the earth

The Bible calls it the beast with lamb-like horns.

[jasd]

>>The Bible calls it the beast with lamb-like horns.<<

That statement/dogma is, imho, the result of very bad exposition. Anyway,

should I describe a bird as having a hooty-like call - one might infer ...owl, or the like. I think Genesis suggests that

kind follows kind, as..., an animal having lamb-like horns - probably indicates a lineage resembling - sheep:

mebbe, Ram?

[Bravus]

Some have suggested that the 'beast with lamb-like horns' was the nearest the prophet could get to describing a bison, which would have been a very fitting beast to represent America.

[John317]

There are very good reasons to believe the earth-beast is the United States.

Most people don't realize that students of Revelation thought it was the US even back in the early 1800s, before the US was even a great or powerful nation.

Many people believed that the sea-beast represented the papacy or the Catholic Church. The earth-beast comes on the scene about the same time as the sea-beast is descending, or receiving its apparently deadly wound, which occurred in 1798. Then both beast-powers become very strong, with the earth-beast causing people to worship the sea-beast and enabling the sea-beast to impose the mark of the beast on all the world.

It's good to remember that Ellen White wrote that these things would happen when the papacy looked like it was finished and long before the US was a great power in the world.