Conservatives are #1!

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Someone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal is pretty confused, but not a political conservative. Social liberalism doesn't allow for fiscal conservatism. Liberalism is very expensive.

What's the official conservative position on energy conservation?

Suck it all up then use something else.

As per usual.... Stupid.

What would my answer have mattered? Your delusions would continue unabated.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I thought Australia was number one?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Someone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal is pretty confused, but not a political conservative. Social liberalism doesn't allow for fiscal conservatism. Liberalism is very expensive.

What's the official conservative position on energy conservation?

Suck it all up then use something else.

My point exactly - most Right Wingers have no clue what conservative means.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Someone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal is pretty confused, but not a political conservative. Social liberalism doesn't allow for fiscal conservatism. Liberalism is very expensive.

What's the official conservative position on energy conservation?

Suck it all up then use something else.

As per usual.... Stupid.

What would my answer have mattered? Your delusions would continue unabated.

You're feeble attempts at political commentary are quite wretched. But as to your statement "Suck it all up then use something else." that is sad both on an economic and scientific level and just screams lazy. The truly sad thing is, you're right, that is the conservative point of view. I've seen far too many sporting hats stating "Drill Baby Drill".

[HAL 9000 96]

I sense a crazy typing now.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Conservatism True and False

There are few things more unstable than political labels. Policies which in one decade are called "liberal" may find themselves called "conservative" in another, and men who in one age thought of themselves as "liberals" are in another age regarded as intransigent "conservatives." Yet for all the migratory propensities of labels, there is nonetheless at the bottom of labels a certain consistency or core meaning which transcends the semantic fluctuations of the moment. That men like Edmund Burke, David Hume, Alexander Hamilton, Alexis de Tocqueville, George Santayana, Joseph Schumpeter, Michael Oakeshott and James Burnham are all conservatives hardly anyone would doubt. Nor would very many more doubt the conservative credentials of Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Milton Friedman, and Jack Kemp. Nonetheless, it should be clear to anyone who delves beneath the mere surface of things that the men in the former list are conservative in an appreciably different way than the men in the latter list. This is not to say that one group is better or worse than another, but simply to point out that there are differences that deserve to be noticed and appreciated. And what, may we ask, are these differences? To put it briefly, we could put it this way: the men in the former list, the Burkes, the Hamiltons, the Santayanas, are non-ideological conservatives. Their conservatism is not a precise creed; it is a method of interpreting experience. The other conservatives, the Limbaughs, the Gingriches, and the Kemps are ideologues. They believe in a precise creed which transcends experience. They are dogmatic and full of political zeal.

http://homepage.mac.com/machiavel/Text/conservatism.html

Edited October 26, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[The_Dude 1,142]

Republicans are not conservatives..... the only true conservatives in this country are Libertarians

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I sense a crazy typing now.

The one with the permanent eye-twitch must be typing up a thesis...

[HAL 9000 96]

Ohhhh not quite there yet. Sorry Steve and Rob- not you guys.

[kaydee457 13]

Umm, I'm wondering why anyone would even question who's most prevalent in terms of ideology in this country.....This poll only states what's intuitively obvious!

Oh, as an aside. Yes Pedro, most Liberals/Democrats have a rooted disrespect and disdain for the Military. Happy you're not in lockstep with them as most Liberals/Dems are lemmings by nature.

Just recently Barbara Boxer berated a U.S. General for addressing her as "Mam" instead of "Senator" for she declared that she "earned the title".....

Well Barbara, you didn't "earn" anything except the right to serve your district and you were awarded that privilege through an election.

The General you showed disrespect for EARNED his rank! I can assure you of that Babs......

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Someone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal is pretty confused, but not a political conservative. Social liberalism doesn't allow for fiscal conservatism. Liberalism is very expensive.

What's the official conservative position on energy conservation?

Suck it all up then use something else.

As per usual.... Stupid.

What would my answer have mattered? Your delusions would continue unabated.

You're feeble attempts at political commentary are quite wretched. But as to your statement "Suck it all up then use something else." that is sad both on an economic and scientific level and just screams lazy. The truly sad thing is, you're right, that is the conservative point of view. I've seen far too many sporting hats stating "Drill Baby Drill".

Yes drill baby drill - until there is a viable alternative. Your answer is - cut off all oil now even though a new infrastructure for alternatives has been estimated to take 30 - 50 years to become efficient and affordable. Why do you want to hurt the economy even more by keeping oil high? Pumping more oil into the world market by drilling and building more refineries will bring the price down worldwide. Its basic supply and demand.

We can't afford to go all electric either. It will cause electricity's price to sky-rocket and we'll have to burn more coal since the libs won't allow for nuclear power. Too bad no matter what route you go, you'll be burning lots of coal or gasoline...

[HAL 9000 96]

Yep... there it is.

[nowhereman 1]

Someone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal is pretty confused, but not a political conservative. Social liberalism doesn't allow for fiscal conservatism. Liberalism is very expensive.

That's not true... I've known lots of people who are conservative democrats & although you may disagree with many of their opinions to call them "confused" is hardly accurate. Heck I've even heard of liberal republicans & that seems like a contradiction in terms as well. Point is unless a person's views are rather extreme (far right or far left) it's almost impossible to say they are 100% conservative or liberal.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Republicans are not conservatives..... the only true conservatives in this country are Libertarians

Rather than adhering to any specific ideology Conservativism and Liberalism are mindsets, IMO. Conservativism is leaning towards tradition and the tried and true, while Liberalism leans toward progress or at least perceived progress. Everyone has elements of those two mindsets when it comes to how they make decisions - "Should I take this side street to avoid traffic or stay on the freeway and brave the gridlock?"

An ideologue would say, "take the freeway" every time regardless of the outcome or consequences.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Someone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal is pretty confused, but not a political conservative. Social liberalism doesn't allow for fiscal conservatism. Liberalism is very expensive.

What's the official conservative position on energy conservation?

Suck it all up then use something else.

As per usual.... Stupid.

What would my answer have mattered? Your delusions would continue unabated.

You're feeble attempts at political commentary are quite wretched. But as to your statement "Suck it all up then use something else." that is sad both on an economic and scientific level and just screams lazy. The truly sad thing is, you're right, that is the conservative point of view. I've seen far too many sporting hats stating "Drill Baby Drill".

Yes drill baby drill - until there is a viable alternative. Your answer is - cut off all oil now even though a new infrastructure for alternatives has been estimated to take 30 - 50 years to become efficient and affordable. Why do you want to hurt the economy even more by keeping oil high? Pumping more oil into the world market by drilling and building more refineries will bring the price down worldwide. Its basic supply and demand.

We can't afford to go all electric either. It will cause electricity's price to sky-rocket and we'll have to burn more coal since the libs won't allow for nuclear power. Too bad no matter what route you go, you'll be burning lots of coal or gasoline...

Not only is that illogical, but it's just plain dumb. If you wait until we've exhausted all the petroleum in the ground, you'll drive prices through the roof. Every consumer product and service is dependant upon oil. Why not be smart about this and use the resources we have to develop transitional energy until we have reached the point on a scientific level when we can detach ourselves from our dependancy. Our nation will be much stronger in terms of global economics and politics when we are no longer dependant on oil.