Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Say, why do we call them "conservatives" when they're really lunatic greedheads with bizarre sexual kinks?

Just asking.

Not that there's anything wrong with having bizarre sexual kinks, generally, except when you make a political career out of "family values" in the public square, and then indulge your diaper fetish in a private room (David Vitter, R-Canal Street Brothel). Jeebus, just indulge your fetish and shut up about everybody else, wouldja? Focus on your own damn family.

But the greed part? That's really bad.

UPDATE To expand a bit, since this is getting some traffic: The Republican brand is pretty much bankrupt by now. There's no sport in insulting a Republican any more; they've made it too damned easy. However, the Republican Party is just a front organization for a larger Conservative movement that also includes Democrats, and has dominated this country for the last generation, and to our great detriment. So, when Jane Smiley, in her review of Klein's new and great book, writes this, I have to take issue:

What amazes me is that Republicans who are now exclaiming at what has happened to the Republican Party (and yes, I talked to my mother this morning) didn't see this coming. Everything, every value, that the Republicans have held up for my lifetime as desirable has been pointing us in this direction. As I've said before on the HuffPost, all of this is the necessary consequence of traditional Republican values, not an accidental byproduct. Or maybe I'll put it this way -- when you reject common humanity, value profits above people, practice sectarian religion, feel contempt for the choices of others, exalt wealth, conflate consumersim with citizenship, join exclusive clubs, daily practice unkindness rather than kindness, and develop theories, such as those of free market capitalism, that allow you to congratulate yourself morally for selfishness and short-sightedness, then being a gang member is in your future.

These are not Republican values per se; they are the [cough] values of the Conservative Movement as a whole, which also includes Democrats like the Bush Dogs. That movement, and those who run it, are the real enemy, not the Republican Partei as such. See here.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Don't Give a Good word for Bad people

They are not conservatives, they are Authoritarians

Karl Rove must smile when we use this good word to describe his radically destructive friends.

Somewhere in our minds conservative means avoiding risks and protecting what's valuable.

Should our leaders be conservative?

When getting on an airplane, most want a Risk Averse pilot, one who is cautiously moderate. We don't want to be part of experimental tricks up in the sky. There is something positive about prudent, careful stewardship.

This important positive connotation is bound with that tern conservative. Yet, this is exactly what "the conservative movement" is not.

There lies the mind f*ck.

to call such radical authoritarians "conservative" is to sabotage communication and / or clear thinking, and help the current ruler's strategy of confusion.

No wonder so many apparently can't think straight about politics today.

Pardon me: What is conservative about:

* rushing into an unnecessary war?
* destroying our civil liberties?
* destroying our environment?
* destroying the separation between church & state?
* record deficits?
* lowering taxes on the rich during a time of war?
* exporting jobs overseas?
* destroying the dollar's value?

Submitted by nikolai (not verified) on

I couldn't agree more with this article, "The Plan," but I think most Americans know this already (or at least feel this way, regardless). The bottom line is, why are we standing for it? What are we going to DO about it?! Apparently bu$hco has almost unlimited power, as thus far they have done pretty much whatever they have wanted to do. This testifies that there IS much unseen power behind the neocon throne, such as Blackwater which is "legal" and publicly known, but what about the UNSEEN forces? (Mo$$ad) Do Americans really believe that the Democrats in Congress are spineless and/or are simply waiting until the 2008 elections to act so that they will not be adversely affected at the polls? This line of reasoning is ignorant and dangerous. Think about it, if Democrats REALLY had the power (Congress and The House) why wouldn't they kick-a$$ and take names and REALLY flex their muscles? Wouldn't that show strength and impress the American people? The answer is "yes" of course, but the reason Democrats are NOT exercising their new found "power" is because they really DON'T HAVE ANY. The Republicans still hold the real power, using strong-arm tactics behind the scenes to keep the Democrats in line along with embarrasing personal and financial information gleaned through illegal spying; after all Hoover did it, why not bu$hco? (Also, please keep in mind that many of the Democratic "leaders" are wealthy fat cats who enjoy the status quo, thank you very much). The proof (of the Democrats not having any real power) is in the pudding. Clinton WAS IMPEACHED and almost convicted for lying about a BJ, but bu$h lies, steals, plunders and murders and the Democrats say "Impeachment is off the table." WTF?!! We now KNOW who has the REAL POWER, and Here's the link to how they are planning to hold on to it:.
http://web.archive.org/web/2005011601253...
Make no mistake, they have BIG plans for us. Now, what are we going to do about THEM?!

Tinfoil Hat Boy's picture
Submitted by Tinfoil Hat Boy on

Unless I am mistaken, we have 13 or 14 to add to the list...

For archival purposes only, mais bien sur.

Child sex parties at the White House in the 80's you say? I missed that one...

"A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead

"A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead

Submitted by lambert on

Still, interesting reading.

I imagine this has been updated since the 80s, what with the National Guard having been Federalized, and the new domestic satellite surveillance program. Eh?

I liked Naomi Klein's definition of a "think tank," have you checked out the videos? "A think tank is where people are paid to think by those who build tanks."

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

are supposed to do. Says so right in the Book of Acts.

They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. (Acts 2:42-45)


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

1 John 4:18

Submitted by Lantern Bearer (not verified) on

is that I love beating them with their own scripture.

>>>All the believers were together and had everything in common.<<<

Personally its not God I dislike, its his fan club I cant stand.

Submitted by Zee (not verified) on

And sorry, Lantern, if God is such a fucking wuss he lets the caliber of creeps who fuck up the earth define "him" he deserves the opposite of worship.

Submitted by lambert on

The site generates links from Bible sites automagically, and I deliberately chose to link to a site with parallel translations, in the hope of causing a loss of cranial integrity for any Christianist who believes, for example that the King James version is the literal word of The God Of Their Choice.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

I'm thinking a rebranding of conservathieves, conservtheirwealth, or cantservatives

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Lambert asks a good question, and everyone should stop calling them "conservatives." Not taking anything away from itranets’ creativity but there is an existing word that comes close to describing the ruling class: Plutocrats.

At least that’s the closest non-obscene term available. As a group they far transcend political parties, organizations or affiliations of any sort – they are beholden only to themselves. There is nothing conservative about them. Claiming affiliation with conservatism is only a means of gaining a political following by deception, as they have done with Christianist dominionism.

Political power in the United States is described as being divided between two parties, Democratic and Republican. In fact, the two-party division is between Democrats and Plutocrats. The Blue Dogs are a splinter faction of the Plutocrat Party and their presence forces Congress to behave as though it were a parliamentary body, with Republicans and Blue Dogs in a coalition voting block that controls the legislative process and leaves the Democratic residuum in the minority. For progressives, Nancy Pelosi may be a disappointment but Steny Hoyer is the enemy. The Plutocrat-controlled Congress acts in concert with the Plutocrat Executive to function as would an unfettered parliamentary government rather than the system of checks and balances our Constitution envisioned.

The sole goal of a Plutocrat is accumulation of wealth. Through wealth, power can be had but it is not sought for its own sake, rather as a tool to further the accumulation of additional wealth. Conservatism, the Republican Party, the Executive, Congress and the Courts, religion, George W. Bush, all mere tools for the Plutocratic enterprise, employed for one unifying purpose - the accumulation of wealth.

Here and elsewhere, the Plutocrats have been likened to organized crime and that’s a close descriptor, closer than fascism or theocracy, some aspects of which may be employed but are not the objective. Plutocrats don’t want to run government, or religion; they want these tools to serve their purpose of accumulating wealth and otherwise stay out of the way. Shrinking government, deregulation, concentration of media ownership, all are policies pursued by the Plutocrats for the purpose of preventing the central function of democratic populist governance - continuous equitable redistribution of wealth for the common good. Plutocrats are about wealth accumulation, not distribution, and all of their policies are formulated with that goal in mind – trickle-down economics (so demeaning: give us all the money and you can have the trickle-down) or, better yet, subservient religiosity wherein the faithful are taught to accept poverty in this life and wait until the next for their reward.

Plutocracy transcends national, ethnic and religious boundaries. Bush and Blair joined forces in the Iraq invasion because France, Germany and the Russians had tied up future revenues from the world’s largest remaining reservoir of light, sweet crude oil. Halliburton and other transnationals are shifting their headquarters to the Middle East because that’s where the greatest concentration of wealth is now occurring. The Bush family sees to the safe exit of the bin Laden family after 9/11 and hold hands with tyrannical Saud family royals because oil money is the basis for growing their family wealth. George W. Bush looked into Vladimir Putin’s eyes and saw something he could embrace - his own soul reflected. All considerations other than wealth - like the law, the constitution, or poor people’s lives - are subservient, if they are even recognized.

The great social struggle is not between right and left, Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, or Christians, Muslims and Jews. It is between those who have the means to accumulate wealth and those who do not. In a capitalist economic system, the principle progressive objective should be achievement of institutionalized equality in economic opportunity through decentralization and diffusion of capital. All other equalities - housing, jobs, marriage, education, health care, nutrition – inevitably must be delivered as prerequisites or naturally follow as consequences. Win over the electorate with a program based on Equal Economic Opportunity and all of the progressive agenda will follow.

Plutocrats.

Submitted by lambert on

The Conservative brand needs to go the way of the GOP brand. (I figured this out, call me slow, after reading Klein's book, and immediately set out to begin doing it. With gratifying results, I might add.)

So we need to keep calling them Conservatives, just do to it what they did to liberal.

That said, yes to "plutocrat" (or kleptocrat) for certain classes of Conservative...

But, rereading, I see that you have "Plutocrat":

In fact, the two-party division is between Democrats and Plutocrats. The Blue Dogs are a splinter faction of the Plutocrat Party and their presence forces Congress to behave as though it were a parliamentary body, with Republicans and Blue Dogs in a coalition voting block that controls the legislative process and leaves the Democratic residuum in the minority.

I like this. Reserve Conservative for the ideology (Conservative Movement, Conservative ascendancy). Reserve Pluotcrat for the institutional apparatus. Yes?

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Naming the Beast isn’t easy and the accurate “Pestilential Pus Pockets” will not likely catch on.

Don’t know about the branding thing, conflating “conservative” with the criminal thieving liars that are today’s GOP seems to me to provide them with an undeserved cover of intellectual legitimacy and soften the perception of what they truly are. Might be better to sever the ties, stop using conservative altogether and just call them out:

Conservative (or GOP) leadership becomes Criminal leadership,
President Bush becomes Capo dei Capi Bush, etc.

Submitted by xan (not verified) on

(although I love yer "PPP" version Bringit, I fear you are correct about its likelihood of success) is to keep them from weaseling "conservative" as a respectable term out of the collapse of the GOP.

"Oh, Bush was not a REAL conservative," they will be (probably already are) trying to say, "he was just an incompetent/evil/misguided/larcenous boob who HIJACKED our respectable philosophy for his own nefarious ends." To which we must reply, in a polite and civil manner, "BULLSHIT."

And I would like to encourage everyone to avoid the word "incompetent" in relation to the Great Conservative Grab of the last 40 years or so, culminating in the Bush imperium. They have certainly not been incompetent in achieving their actual ends, self-enrichment and -empowerment.

(In relation to which, Lambert, might I respectfully suggest a change of the popup whatchacallit that attaches to the word "Conservative" from "clueless fuckup on the winger billionaire tit" to "co-conspirator" or something similar. They ain't the least bit clueless, the vast majority of 'em; by this point they're either in on the theft or they've already done a Chaffee and quit.)

Abu Al Gonzalez, for instance, was not the lease incompetent in carrying out his assignment, fending off any attempt to enforce the rule of law on the Executive. He was spectacularly successful in this. Of course he was incompetent in enforcing the actual laws (those things passed by, you know, Congress) but that was never his job anyway so it is misleading to use that term in reference to him.

You can pretty much apply the same analysis to any of the true "Bushies" of the last seven years. Their jobs were to funnel taxpayer money to the pockets of themselves and their cronies, and to find and emplace those of like mind throughout the bureaucracy under their control. And, if possible, get away with it undetected, or at least unindicted.

Submitted by lambert on

2. Not yet indicted co-conspirator.

It's very difficult to invent and propagate an entirely new word (Atrios has done it with "Freidman Unit" but it took at least a year of ceaseless repetition on a prominent blog). Far better to poison an existing word in circulation, as the Conservatives indeed did to with "liberal."

We might also add a glossary entry for Incompetent. As Xan said, they're highly competent at lying, looting, and getting away clean.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Sad to see useful words corrupted and their conversational utility thereby diminished, whether the damage is done by the right or the left.

Suppose that makes me a conservative linguist, a trait that fortunately does not prevent me from being simultaneously cunning.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Oldies but goodies

”Liberals feel unworthy of their possessions. Conservatives feel they deserve everything they've stolen.” Mort Sahl

”The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” John Kenneth Galbraith

”Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.” John Stuart Mill

Submitted by anonymous cowar... (not verified) on

You realize that John Stuart Mill would not be a Democrat today, don't you? He was an individualist and a 'classical liberal' in today's language (probably a Libertarian). I agree about the plutocrats...just thought that was a little intellectually dishonest.

Submitted by TopCat (not verified) on

The current president's grandfather, Prescott Bush, along with other prominent industrialists attempted a coup in the 1930's to turn America into a fascist state like Germany and Italy at that time. They approached Marine Corps Maj.-Gen. Smedley Butler with the proposition of leading a half-million man army of veterans to defeat FDR's government in 1933 because his policies were perceived as too progressive.

The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression.

Mike Thomson investigates why so little is known about this biggest ever peacetime threat to American democracy. Listen to the program.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/docu...

Submitted by Doug54 (not verified) on

I do remember reading about this but of course our history buries it. The documentary says it runs about 28 minutes. It is an important part of history, very important part, that is not taught, but should.

It's ironic that they approached Gen.Smedley Butler. He was the one who wrote something to the effect that "war was a racket" to steal resources from other countries for the rich."

He did his job for them but was also an outspoken critic. He is the real hero in this and other crimes he wrote about.

Submitted by TopCat (not verified) on

THE GEORGE BUSH CONNECTION
In this day and age when some people can not even name the president of the United States, it is not the least bit surprising that most have no knowledge of George Bush's possible connections to the Kennedy assassination. The relationship has its roots in Bush's "former" employment with the CIA. As CIA agents have been quoted in the past, you never really leave the Agency.

THE CIA DID IT!
Many researchers place the blame for the murder of John F. Kennedy on the CIA. The easiest way to clear the mafia or other non-governmental groups is to look at the massive cover-up that the government has participated in over the years. If mafia boss Carlos Marcello had really ordered the hit, could he have had the CIA and FBI suppress so much evidence from the public for so long? Could he have had the normal security lowered for the assassination? Could he have had the Washington D.C. phone system knocked out of order for an hour right as the shooting took place? Could he have convinced the Warren Commission to release such an idiotic official version of the murder? Of course not. The set-up and cover-up had to take place INSIDE of the government, not outside.

http://www.angelfire.com/ky/ohwhy/Bush.html

Woody--Tokin Librul's picture
Submitted by Woody--Tokin Librul on

of the systematic, corpoRat/elite/oligarchic right-wing program to overthrow the Constitution and steal the nation from the people.
I think Allan Dulles--the first CIA director--planned and ordered the hit.

A Quick Study, But A Slow Learner

Me? A Quick Study, But A Slow Learner

Woody--Tokin Librul's picture
Submitted by Woody--Tokin Librul on

"Conservatives" not getting it?
Cuz they're not "conservative?"
How about CorpoRats?
Plutocrats sounds like a Disney character. There's no menace in the label at all, though there is PLENTY in their agenda...
But it's all an exercise in futility, anyway, cuz the Murkin pee-ple aren't EVER gonna turn away from the (false) promise that they may one day join the ranks of the wealthy. there's a MILLION fukcing suckers born every minute...

A Quick Study, But A Slow Learner

Me? A Quick Study, But A Slow Learner

Woody--Tokin Librul's picture
Submitted by Woody--Tokin Librul on

POWER
Submitted by nikolai (not verified) on Sat, 2007-09-15 15:33.
I couldn’t agree more with this article, “The Plan,” but I think most Americans know this already (or at least feel this way, regardless). The bottom line is, why are we standing for it?

We are NOT standing for it. We're kneeling. Like supplicants, begging "Can I have anovver, mister" at the feet of the dispensers of wealth, leisure, health and care-free living.
When you've got the L, G & M, you've got all you need; and you can keep the rabble at bay indefinitely, if not by buying off a couple of them every once in a while, then by killing a couple, or otherwise fucking up their lives.

A Quick Study, But A Slow Learner

Me? A Quick Study, But A Slow Learner

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Thanks ever so much for the capsule summary of Mill’s thinking; saves everyone the trouble of actually wading through all that tediousness.

“John Stuart Mill would not be a Democrat today” Well now, speaking of intellectual dishonesty, what have we here? Psychic contact with the spirits of the dead? The ability to take a character from history and reconstitute their thoughts to incorporate all the changes in social and economic structure that have occurred over the last 250 years? Since you value speaking frankly, Mr. Coward, let me just say that presuming to speak for men long dead strikes me as more than “a little” intellectually dishonest.

And what else? Ah yes, the simple fact than nowhere in this thread is it even hinted that Mill would be a Democrat – simply is not stated, claimed, or implied. Setting up a straw man and thereby falsely defaming someone is, however, deeply intellectually dishonest and that would be you, Mr. Coward.

Whether or not JS Mill would be a registered Democrat or have any political party affiliation whatsoever is unknowable, but given his staunch support of political and social equality for women, his call for universal suffrage, his promotion of birth control, his extensive argument in favor of the necessity for constraining capitalism to provide for the material needs of all, his promotion of worker ownership and influence in the management of corporations, his insistence on science as the basis for reasoning and governance, his denial of a supreme being and opposition to intuitivism, his distaste for conservatives and his compassion for the downtrodden, it is more than certain that in today’s political climate he would be casting his vote in the [D] column; certainly not the [R].

It may come as a shock for you to learn that there are a great many “classical liberals” and “individualists” who retain membership in the Democratic Party because it is the sole existing political structure through which we can make ourselves relevant, even if it is at the moment principally limited to the local level. Not having your gifts as a spiritual medium I cannot presume to speak for Mill but were he here and chose to be a member of the Democratic Party, I would not – on the basis of the whole of his life’s work – be surprised.

Intellectually dishonest? Harrumph.