What is a conservative?

The answer is very simple: Jesus Christ was, by most accounts, a liberal.
Ergo, by definition, a conservative is the anti-Christ.

Just can't help but bash Christians, can you. How long did it take you to come up with that one?

Why are only the non-conservative comments even mentioning religion?

It's just the same old tired rhetoric.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

I don't bash Christians, I'm one myself! I do like to take shots at conservatives who pretend to be Christians....if you're one of those people who can somehow rationalize away the inherent differences between the Christian message of "Love thy neighbor" and the conservative message of "Hate thy neighbor...he's DIFFERENT!", well more power to ya. You'll forgive me if I choose not to embrace your delusion.

In answer to your question, it took me 1 minute and 15 seconds to come up with "that one".

As to your other question, I think the "non-conservative comments" have to do mainly with standing up to sleazy conservative attempts to constantly redefine Christianity in conservative terms: hate, divisiveness, big weapon systems, etc, etc.

I am a conservative. I am a Christian.

If you honestly think a conservative cannot be a Christian, how do you reconcile the precepts of tolerance and "..judge not, lest you be judged. For in how you judge, you to will be judged." as they apply to your comments to me?

Now, specifically, how does my list make me the "Anti-Christ"? If you want to group me into the same lot as other conservatives you have come across, and evidently have a deep sense of disdain, then that is your right. However, don't ever stoop to the level where you think you may preach to me and accuse me of being the Anti-Christ simply because I said:

and added later

1. Follow the constitution and not allow the courts to write law; and
2. Untie the military's hands. Let them fight the most effective engagements to accomplish the mission. Why should anything (other than civilians) be off limits during a war?

Now if you want to be prejudice and embarass yourself, your religion and your party, go ahead; hypocrites are on both sides and even on this site.

Just to bump the above comments back to Sniffles. Since he did not answer, I want to give him another chance.

"hypocrites are on both sides and even on this site."

Sometimes this site is like a duel, where both parties, instead of pointing the weapons at eachother, instead play Russian Roulette. One, two, ready, fire! Bang! We both lose.

That being said, I'm a big fan of biting humor on both sides. It is hard, at times, to keep one's sense of humor though. I've kept tape over my mouth on this thread, because we'd all end up with bruised knuckles. And my wife hates it when I come home with bruised knuckles

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King

I don't mind reasonable banter. I enjoy it. But for sniffles to blantantly say Conservatives and all non-Democrats are the Anti-Christ; come on, even on a bad day of jousting this is too much.

I was wondering why you were not responding to this thread. Even Git Real has not played in on it. At least that nasty Aggressive Pro.... No, I cannot not even finish the name, has not been involved.

Anyway, have a great day.....

ps: I do love the A10. Very capable aircraft. Believe it or not, my favorites are the A10, C130 and P51. Even today, I am wearing my Red Nose P51 shirt from the guys at CAF, Falcon Field.

and it's hard to believe that the C-130 is still coming off of the assembly line. They've hung skis on it, whiskers on the front to pick up stranded persons tethered to a balloon, they've put howitzers in it, 6-bladed props on it, weather radar, special ops night vision gizmos. It's like a flying leatherman tool!!

Kevin "Hack" King

I thought they were called Republicans--not "conservatives." That used to mean they like to elect a person who they can depend upon to speak and vote on EVERYTHING in a straight line with no deviation, for everyone else, including the rabble out there who don't know what is good for them! If he votes against the party--even if they are wrong, he is out!
A democrat, on the other hand, expects their candidate to use his brain and vote against something that is wrong--even if proposed by a fellow democrat. If he doesn't, he is fired.
There are no specific items anymore that the republicans can claim as Reaganesque (a former democrat-actors can go both ways). Be it fiscal, or non-fiscal, they can claim nothing!
At least the democrats occasionally speak of the needs of the peons.

I doubt very seriously if you have any idea what a true conservative is but you sure can make me laugh..."A democrat, on the other hand, expects their candidate to use his brain and...." Oh, I can't type the rest...my sides are splitting!!! LOL! Oh, and a good one about the "peons", too.

Tell us what a true conservative is? I'll check back tomorrow with a response if you want one. Now it's off to the grill and some suds.

I hope you have had and will continue to have a very nice Memorial Day.

Yeah, I know what a "true" conservative is:

Anything they don't like is not to be done by any government.
Anything they like is to be done by the government.
And, if it effects democrats adversely--they deserve it!

The first line-item veto after 1929 was exercised by Governor Jimmy Carter in 1973 when he vetoed a paragraph in the Department of Natural Resources Authorization. Clinton was the only President to have the line item veto. He vetoed 87 items before the line-item veto was declared unconstitutional by the conservative majority of the Supreme Court. Every President since 1976 has asked for this type of veto. Wanting a line item veto is in no way a definition of “conservative”.

TRUE fiscal responsibility? Not under Republican/conservatives.

White House data show the gross national debt hit a 47 year low just as President Reagan was taking office. It climbed steadily under Reagan and G. H. W. Bush, declined under Clinton and made a quick U-turn under G. W. Bush.

The gross federal debt now stands at 63.5% of GDP. Of that, 33.5 percentage points were contributed by Reagan-Bush, 6 points by G. W. Bush

The Gross National Debt

Twist the definition of conservative anyway you want but if this is a criteria neither Reagan nor either Bush fits the definition. Fiscal responsibility is today almost exclusively the sole domain of liberal to moderate Democrats.

TRUE border security? Again, sorry. The Democrats are the only ones with any valid border security proposals. All the “conservatives” have done is obstruct the process guaranteeing that nothing is done and denouncing in the most hysterical terms their leaders like McCain who put forward rational proposals. Reagan also cannot qualify as a conservative I guess because of his amnesty plan.

Permanent Tax Cuts? The defining issue of the Republican Party! Unfortunately, tax cuts without spending reductions is just another way to borrow money from your kids (with interest) and indebt them to the Chinese.

A valid form of welfare for a set term; time limit? President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, “ending welfare as we know it”. This was a truly bipartisan bill, hardly a definition of “conservative”.

Strive for a valid Free Enterprise system? Limit the hype. Politicians should work, not mingle? Meaningless rhetoric.

From what you say you want WakeUp, you should be a supporter of Democratic Party.

Here is a more valid profile of today’s conservative: supports preemptive war, supports torture, supports illegal wiretaps, supports the unitary Presidency, willing to give up virtually all rights guaranteed under the Constitution for any small amount of promised safety and an economic policy defines exclusively by promotion of tax cuts even in the face of two wars.

Wake up, WakeUp.

I am awake. Please reread the request. I believe he asked "So, here’s the question to start this thread: If and when the GOP becomes Conservative again, what would they stand for? What is the recalibrated yardstick to measure future candidates for U.S. Representative, U.S. Senate, and President?"

Now, my short list was not to say what the current Republicans stand for. Nor did I say what prior Democrats stand for. Do you think the items I mentioned above are Conservative or Liberal? If they are traditional liberal values, then I have a gross misunderstanding of the two concepts. Now, I understand where you are coming from. But don't cry the Democrats did this and this and this while "your" republicans screwed all these things up. When and if the GOP returns to core conservative values, the items I mentioned should be included. Also, why can't I have meaningless rhetoric? That's my perogative.

Do you still think I need to wake up?

Again, his request was not for "today's conservative (Republian)". What you have is correct. In reality we are not that far off. Don't get bitter. There are more of us who really think alike and want what is really best for our country. I don't give a flying rip if the president is a donkey or an elephant. Big DEAL.
For the record, there is not a conservative with a serious chance in this coming election. Too bad.

Do you know what my favorite commercial is? See it here: COKE AD

I respect your grasp of politics. But how often are you blinded by the party line? I recall you and I agreed at one point there were some idiots on both sides. I still think there are idiots on both sides. The problem is, there always has been and always will be.

Yeah WakeUp

Actually I was just being provocative. It’s a hobby of mine to try to get people to define “conservative” so that Reagan (massive debt, pro-choice Guv, immigration amnesty) fits into the definition. It’s a trick assumption but you’d be amazed at how many people end up denying Reagan was a “conservative” after all. If people let me define all the terms I almost always win the argument. You didn’t fall for it, a credit, but it’s really too nice a day for arguing anyway, so I don’t mind too much.

Happy Memorial Day!

why is former president jimmy carter such a douchebag?

-----------------------------------------------

Ex-US president: Israel has 150 nukes

JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST May. 26, 2008

One month after his visit to the region spurred criticism from Israeli officials for his meeting with Syria-based Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal, former US president Jimmy Carter is again making waves, this time saying that Israel possesses 150 nuclear weapons.

The London Times said Carter made the comment Sunday while at the Hay-on-Wye literary festival in England. He was discussing Iran, and the difficulty it would have in building a secret nuclear arsenal, when he mentioned the Israeli weapons, the paper said.

In a report published on Monday, Carter was quoted as saying that the international community should conduct direct dialogue with Iran in order to persuade the country to drop its nuclear ambitions.

It was unclear from the newspaper's account whether Carter was citing those estimates, offering his own independent assessment or drawing on US intelligence he would have had access to as president.

Although it is widely speculated that Israel indeed has nuclear weapons, no Israeli government has ever admitted to such.

Former Military Intelligence chief Maj.-Gen. (ret.) Aharon Ze'evi Farkash downplayed Carter's comments on Tuesday, but warned that they could potentially be used by Iran to push its nuclear development.

"[Carter] is not the first and he won't be the last to talk about this," Farkash said during an interview with Israel Radio. "I think the dialogue about Israel on this subject is known, and I wouldn't want to expand on this; as it is, it would seem that in [Carter's] latest visit to the region, he was so hurt [by the political establishment shunning him] that he saw fit to say things which I think weren't that responsible.

"He was a president a long time ago, and these kinds of things could do damage, but on the other hand, it could enhance the deterrent," Farkash continued, but added that with regard to the current international effort to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions, "they, the enemy, or some of our 'less good' friends, could use these claims against us."

Meanwhile, in an interview with The Guardian, Carter called on members of the European Union to break the embargo of the Gaza Strip, which he called "one of the greatest human rights crimes on Earth."

"Most families in Gaza are eating only one meal per day. To see Europeans going along with this is embarrassing," he said.

Carter called the ban on talking to Hamas "unrealistic" and cited Israeli cease-fire negotiations with Hamas - via Egyptian mediator Omar Suleiman - as reason enough for the Europeans to reexamine their stance.

Why so rude and crude? No one on this site will be impressed by your crass comments, regardless of their opinion of the work of Jimmy Carter.

Make a list of the topics and facts you can’t handle and I’ll pass it on.

Jeff, I know you have had a long time putting up with stuff like this. I may not agree with you, your father, George Bush, Bill Clinton or anyone else all the time, but I think this level of name calling is childish. You should not have responded and just let it pass.

Each side has distractors and those that only hurt the cause. The labels of conservative and liberal are too easily applied to Democrats or Republicans, and Christians or Atheists. If what another poster has stated was true, all Christians would or should be conservative (Republicans) and not Democrats. Again, another immature association.

I hope you had time for your suds and burgers yesterday.

I was just reacting to the crudity, almost a 100% guarantee that the person has no depth to their argument.

In fact, I had a great time yesterday; cooked up some chicken, sipped some suds and enjoyed the day with friends. I hope y’all did too.

I thought about those who gave so much so that we are free to enjoy a day like that. Sacrifices so great that they can only be thought of as a gift from them to us.

A bittersweet holiday.

what else do you call a guy that meets with the leader of the militant Hamas movement in Syria in April, and lays a wreath of red roses at the grave of PLO leader Yasser Arafat?

the guy is a douchebag

You cannot win the argument against me simply because you do not have a clue as to what the reality in the Middle East is. When your reservoir of knowledge comes from Sean and Rush you are going to be at a severe disadvantage. You got the slogan but nothing to back it up. Sorry, but that is just the way it is.

I have pointed out earlier, Former chief of the Mossad and former head of Israel's National Security Council Efraim Halevy has called for talks with Hamas. Former Shin Bet director and General Security Services Chief Ya'akov Perry and former Israeli Defense Forces Chief of Staff Likudnik Shaul Mofaz both have said that it is in Israel's security interests to engage in talks with Hamas. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said the Quartet should find way to talk to Hamas. Israeli security cabinet minister and former head of the Israeli secret service Ami Ayalon has called for talks with Hamas.

Those are the facts.

As I asked others before (and which of course you cannot answer) do you think that the former chief of the Mossad and former head of Israel's National Security Council and the former Shin Bet director and General Security Services Chief and the former Israeli Defense Forces Chief of Staff and the Israeli security cabinet minister and former head of the Israeli secret service and the former US Secretary of State are giving credence and status to Hamas and just simply do not have the same level of knowledge and sophistication in international affairs as you?

Let us leave in agreement then because I do not think so either.

you mention several "former" leaders. do you ever wonder why they are former. listen, just because jimmy carter thinks the same way that other douchebags think doesn't make him any less of a douchebag.

the fact that he laid a wreath at the grave of a known terrorist that attacked innocent civilians makes him even more of a douchebag.

Your implication that they are former officials because of their views proves my point that you don't really know enough about the situation to offer meaningful comment. Like in the US military, these officials are barred from speaking out on these matters while they are in office.

Always the "loyal opposition" to whatever is great about America, especially when it comes to someone like Reagan. It would be funny how predictable you are if it also wasn't so pathetic!

What on earth was great about Reagan?
He spoke actor talk and said crap, usually.
He spent money like a drunken soldier.
He violated the Constitution by ignoring a congressional law about Contras.
He was a democrat acting like a republican to get elected after republicans (GE Corp) made him rich! A hypocrite.
I seriously doubt he would have done any of those things had he been elected as a democrat, which would never have happened, however.

Bill Clinton's approval rating was higher when he left office, 66%, than Reagan's, 63%.

I wish you a Happy Memorial Day also. Now, get outside, grill some burgers and enjoy friends and family. When I get off work this evening, I will do the same.

Thanks for your starting comments, WakeUp.

Please expand on the following - What's your definition of "TRUE" fiscal responsibility, "TRUE" border security, and "valid" Free Enterprise?

TRUE fiscal responsibility -
1. Spend what you have - balance budget
2. Purchase readily available products
3. Eliminate redundant layers of supervisory positions

TRUE border security - easy, build the wall and follow through on your promises.

Valid Free Enterprise - Get the government out of the main stream economy. Eliminate farm subsidies, remain neutral on mergers unless there is an overwhelming question of a monopoly, allow the supply and demand dictate wages and eliminate all quotas.

But I want to add 2 more:

1. Follow the constitution and not allow the courts to write law; and
2. Untie the military's hands. Let them fight the most effective engagements to accomplish the mission. Why should anything (other than civilians) be off limits during a war?

that your last two criteria would include "follow the constitution" and the military in wartime. I would suggest that your re-read that venerable document, particularly in reference to what it says about war. Keep the faith.

Even a dead fish can go with the flow.

I just think the Constitution should be strictly followed. And that the military should fight all wars / conflicts to win. Now, whether all military actions are fundamentally legal is a different issue. But, these are mutually exclusive of each other as I have listed them.