Why do Liberals and Progressives like Shills and Morons allow the Republican party to Preempt the Term "conservative?" Let's not cooperate?

When I hear the word "conservative" What I hear is a gas station shop I went to on a car trip between Oregon and Arizona where I stopped at a gas station convenience store with a gift shop between in 1999 and I saw a bumper sticker that said "US Congressional policy, it isn't broken fix it Til it is" This person  was precluding to the idea that if it isn't broken don't fix it!!!!

I happen to be a LEFT WINGER on a lot of issues, but I have to admit that when I heard that guy say what he said I wanted to buy the owner of this joint a Drink, you better believe.

But when I hear the word Liberal I hear Glee, and I hear my Favorites advocating for Defending the National Endowment for the Arts and you better believe the conservative and liberal in me in Want to defend them.  I Think of Daphne and Melody fighting over  Jeff on Switched at birth over the issue of doing her class work rather than farting around distracted about a romantic interest because she's Deaf.  I'm Tired of their Frame. How The hell was George W bush a Conservative? or even Reagan for that matter? Both those men changed this country a lot from where it was under Kennedy and Eisenhower.

I'm a lefty, but I have old fashioned traits that are Stitched to me tight. I'm Old fashioned in dating and have no idea why Chivalry has gone out of style. Doesn't make any damn sense to me.

Webster's Dictionary defines "conservatism" as the "disposition in politics to preserve what is established". It is further defined as "a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions and preferring gradual development to abrupt change."
In the recent past, so-called "conservatives" have adopted modifiers, such as "fiscal" or "social" to describe their particular brand of conservatism. If one looks back a bit further, one finds that the conservative platform stood for smaller government, fiscal responsibility, civil liberties, privacy rights, and a significant degree of autonomy for the states in our federalist system of government.

I'm Definitely for "conserving" or "civil liberties" and "privacy rights" And am a civil libertarian in nature. There are Aspects of me that support fiscal responsibility, but I know sometimes people need help. I don't think "conservatism" is about "small government" and in fact think "small government" conservatives are the radical infiltrators who want to dismantle government institutions and guarantees to protect our civil liberties.

The "conservative" label sounds warm and fuzzy. It evokes images of someone who conserves, which is to save, to husband, to act circumspectly, even cautiously, and co-operatively or multi-laterally. The label evokes impressions of one who understates and underestimates, someone who low-balls expectations, rather than going in for "pie-in-the-sky" scenarios.

However I'm not a fan of our bloated military budget and want our education money to be spent more intelligently and additional funds.

Remember the now infamous Rumsfeld predictions that we "will be greeted as liberators" by the people in Iraq and that oil revenues will pay for the war. The cost of this little "conservative" adventure has been established according to Reuters studies at a grand total of $2 trillion. "Staying the course" might have seemed the conservative option at the time, but with all the contractor fraud now becoming obvious and such it seems pretty clear that it was a road to nowhere with no coherent plan and no real "Exit strategy" www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314

People like the sound of "conservative", perhaps especially because of the way that the term "liberal" has been demonized. But the warm, fuzzy feelings engendered by the word "conservative" melt away when we see programs for the poor slashed in order to give still more riches to the rich. The average person is outraged by the corruption, incompetence, and cronyism that goes by the name of conservatism nowadays, as the examples from Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Ca), to Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), to Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex), to Gov. Bob Taft (R-Oh.) to former Gov. George Ryan (R-Ill.), to former Gov. John Rowland (R-Conn.) to David H. Brooks (whose company (DHB) sold millions of dollars of faulty "bulletproof" vests bound for soldiers in Iraq, ) to the Coalition Provisional Authority's bribes, etc. etc. etc.

I would even venture to suppose that each and every one of the above named people would profess some doctrine of "personal responsibility", at least when it is someone else's responsibility. Whom in this Administration has accepted personal responsibility for anything? Not for Iraq or for the lies that duped most people, not for Katrina, not for the law-breaking, and not for corruption that has sent the military-industrial-congressional complex to lead its pigs back to the trough.

The original species of "conservative" (perhaps best defined by Barry Goldwater's The Conscience of a Conservative) seems now to be an endangered one. The prior Administration bloated the size of government, creating not one but two new federal agencies, the Department of Homeland De fence and the Transportation Security Agency. It has engaged in unprecedented deficit spending and trade deficits that are fast becoming matters of national security. And their idea of sacrifice in wartime was to give away tax receipts, mostly to the richest Americans. Only the poor  were  asked to make sacrifices in a time of war and Republicans to this very day continue to resist making sacrifices of ANY kind.  

just sixteen years after Ronald Reagan piled up p $1.042 Trillion in Trade deficits and $1.692 trillion in federal debt (from 1980-1988), Congress raised the federal debt ceiling to $8.111 trillion. And remember, Bill Clinton left office with a hefty surplus! Conservative, eh?

Speaking of war, the Bush Doctrine was used to justify the invasion of Iraq. The Bush Doctrine is, of course, a rationalization for "pre-emptive" war. In plain language, this means that the U.S. arrogates to itself the right to attack another nation which has not attacked us first; in other words, this Administration feels fully justified in starting a war without provocation. Can any reasonable person consider this "conservative"?

For an encore, this cabal, as Col. Lawrence Wilkerson calls them, justifies torture, practices "extraordinary rendition", allows the CIA to maintain secret prisons, called "black sites," for such torture. And in its continual attempt to shift more and more power to an incompetent and misguided chief executive, it wants to suspend Habeas Corpus.

The former Administration pushed through the mislabelled "USA Patriot Act" that erodes civil liberties and tramples privacy rights of various kinds. This Administration and its supporters must be reminded that "suspects"---whether they are accused of "criminal" or "terrorist" acts, remain untried and unproven, with their putative crimes only alleged. And the sequel to Patriot I promises to be even more Draconian.

Nor is there any sense in which the former Administration's self-styled "conservatism" has anything to do with conservation. There are no funds for the expired super fund to clean-up toxic sites. They introduce pollution emission deregulation while, in true Orwellian fashion, calling their initiative "Clear Skies"!

So, people of good will that oppose these policies and persons, let us be more careful in the way we speak. Let us call a spade a spade and let us not provide cover for radical, regressive, and reckless actions committed in our names by parroting the spin-meisters' spin!

I really have found myself sort of frustrated that so much damage has been allowed to be done to the institution of marriage by heterosexuals though. Like the whole littlest groom or the way our culture has socially conditioned it's daughters to fantasize their whole life about their weddings but not spent a single day thinking about what it means to be a wife. So when you try to ask me to Oppose Gay Marriage I don't, I support it as a straight ally because I know damn well from my queer friends and family members that they could save us by inspiring us to envy the length of their marriages. With so many of our marriages still ending in divorce even though those numbers now seem to be declining I think much could have to do with our watching what the gays are doing. I envy the stability of many Gay marriages and I know and I hear my grandparents when they say people used to work it out when their relationships fell apart. I know I don't like that. I know I hope Queer couples don't learn from us but lead us back to our Bygone days of stability in heterosexual relationships. Plus there's no good reason to not let the state let people get married.

In fact I would say that since I feel that homosexual marriage could save heterosexual marriage that if you would have to ask me to define "Traditional" marriage and they so rarely do. and to me "traditional" is now when two heterosexual people love each other and chose to get married be in the church or even a state institution. Either way. But To "conservatives" if they studied the history of "a traditional marriage" they might discover that "Traditionally speaking" marriage has already been changed from One of Arranged marriages which "Conservatives" of the day supported but which were not based on love. The historical origin of the term "Love child" is when two people in arranged marriages had a child outside of marriage. Yep. That would make you a love-child. I have to "resurrect" this term to make my point. We've already changed marriage before! Why is it such a big deal that "This" change is "unprecedented" and that one wasn't? Trying to have it both ways? I support the rights of all humans to marry whatever human they truly want to. But don't for a minute try to frame it as though I'm not a fan of "traditional" marriage just because I support homosexual Marriage you Orwellian Contortionist Fraudster.

I'm also Stunning irritated at a party that pretend's to be pro-life but it seems can't even et it's shit together on Prenatal care and worked to Take down SCHIP and such. you know, The program to give medical care to children? Yep.

I'm not sure how exactly the republican consider  themselves pro-life because in addition to all of that crap they don't even appear to really be unified behind Pre-natal Care. you know the image I evoked of a Woman who doesn't spend a single day thinking about what it's like to be married? these GOP "pro-lifers" In addition to all of that shit somehow or another have managed to get all hung up on the Label when fighting their culture war but do they spend a single day thinking about what it's like to actually be a Mother of kids? Do they want Pre-natal care? they don't seem to talk about it much, do they mention anything about the child after it's born and all the expenses those women are going to be subjected to? no, they're busy ATTACKING the social safety net! the VERY thing those girls would depend on!

Worse and more to the point is that they are behaving just as bad as the Women Evoked earlier who are taught and raised to spend every  day fantasizing about their wedding and  not one day day about marriage itself. So many "Want kids" or or are Blinded by their hatred and brought into the GOPs fold that they can't see four feet in front of them to think about pre-natal care or how expensive it is to actually raise a child. So forr the party to talk about "fiscal responsibility" and then do what it does is really low.

So I don't understand why we don't refuse to acknowledge them as "conservatives" and don't just say we're the genuine conservatives.  After all we're the ones defending the 17th amendment and a million other Civil rights the GOP is trying to take away. We're the ones for "conserving" the 17th amendment. We're the ones that are "for" "conserving" most of our civil rights. I know many special interest in the democratic caucus could be attacked on cross with the idea of gun control but has Obama seized a single gun? no? then how?

Why don't we turn this around on them, start calling them Regressives. I mean after all, that is the opposite of progress.

Your Email has been sent.