The term "CONSERVATIVE"...

[SongOfTheRayne]

What, exactly, are they conserving?

Not the bill of rights...not the environment....not human life...

[C_U_L8R]

1. They're most certainly not conserving money

These so-called conservatives never saw a
boondoggle or slush fund they didn't love.

And they love stealing other people's money...
in other words... ours

[redphish]

3. They ARE conserving our money, they're keeping it for themselves.

[BrainRants]

2. Conserving thought?

Conserving common sense?

Conserving Intelligence?

[SongOfTheRayne]

4. And doing what with it?

:think: Oh, i know! Oh....wait....nevermind. RIP intelligence.:nopity:

[S B]

5. Conservative

They are conserving the military/industrial control over government (people) and trying to expand it.

[Boojatta]

6. They are conserving the use of small numbers of specialists to create

biased and deceptive messages for large numbers of voters.

They are conserving a focus on personalities rather than policies.

They are conserving the notion of elections as games, the notion that every voter's goal should be to vote for the winner, and the notion that predictions of voter behavior should be self-fulfilling prophecies.

[heirs_of_liberty]

7. Conservatives are usually religious socialists..

Imperial tyranny is usually dependent upon a widely believed specific socialist dogma, containing doctrinal dictates that are supported by an established cult bureaucracy. In rare cases a warlord or strongman can establish a similar personality cult by criminal violence, but his military fascist descendants are usually doomed unless such a broader socialist alliance is made.


In Japan they were Shinto socialists, in Germany 'Christian' socialists in Italy Roman Catholic socialists, in England Anglican socialists or Tories. In response, Marx tried to establish worker (or communal) 'socialism', but refused to see the similarities between communism and the more religious theosophisms, only treating them as threats to it's party apparatus. Marx and Lenin insisted that their purely rational scientific socialism was something materialist instead of being an ideological fog of traditions as religions are...

Traditional conservatives were primarily either privatists(elitist) of socialists(religious), our forefathers finally saw that Liberty and Liberalism was the only true solution to providing religious freedom within a union of political liberty. The new politics of Republican Liberty was born and the new opposing paradigms were to be the arguments of liberal privatism vs liberal socialism.

Political conservatives are always religious or elitist imperial totalitarians, usually both. The National (nationalist - federalist) Republican Party became the new home for established Christian Socialism in America after 'slave obey they master' Christian Dixiecrats flocked to it during the 60's in an attempt to preserve racial segregation and religious-socialist persecution of women.

The threat that exists within every mighty socialist organization embodying a dogmatic set of notions in this world lies in the religious fervor and intolerance with which, once established politically and militarily, and fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its now-fascist will against all others. Liberalism alone is inherently free of this subversive tendency toward the tyranny of fascism.

The threat that exists in George W Bush is the fact that he will say anything to avoid the words Liberty or Liberal, and when he does, he means "free to be conservative"... LOL

[Brilligator]

8. The ironic thing

is that most of today's Bush supporters aren't actually conservatives at all, but neoconservatives.

And neoconservatives are in many ways diametrically opposed to what conservatives say they are for. Conservatives claim they are for smaller government, neocons are for bigger government. Conservatives claim they are for prudent foreign policy, neocons are for radical, reckless foreign policy. Conservatives claim they are for keeping government out of our lives, neocons are for controlling society (marriage, homosexuality, censorship) extremely tightly, etc.

And yet so many self-proclaimed conservatives still support Bush. (Otoh, I know a few personally who can't stand Bush) Why is that?

Clearly it's the brilliant propaganda campaign that the neocons have humming along like a finely tuned machine right now. The cartoonish strawman version of today's "liberal" or "democrat" is so ridiculous and yet so widely accepted by these people that they will support almost anyone over a Democrat, whom they have been lied to thinking will immediately open a porn shop next door to their house, teach their children sexual positions in first grade, forcibly remove religion from the world, sieze money and property from the rich to give to the poor, raises taxes to 50%, dismantle the military, support the terrorists, etc.

[paluch]

9. Govmt.

Some of whats said above is actually pretty much the opposite of the truth. By definition a socialist government is the extremity of left-wing politics, while an authoritarian government is extreme right-wing. Fascism is basically an authoritarian government that seeks to micromanage every aspect of its citizenry (and the "national socialist party" was not a socialist party at all; in fact almost every part of it involved degrees of class structure) while a totalitarian government is a micromanaging socialist regime; there have really only been one "true" form of each of these, Hitler's Germany and Stalin's USSR respectively (prior to that point in history the technology and bureaucracy to micromanage a nation at this level did not exist). Communism was the implemented form of socialism, the goals of a Marxist society were to eliminate the class system entirely (aside from a smaller group needed to centralize certain matters of economics, defense, etc..) and create a very strong government that would be involved in all aspects of a citizens life and was "owned" by the people. Part of eliminating the class system meant the necessary eradication of mass religious belief, since religions are a class system of their own and depending on the religion may contain another set of classes. Religion and socialism have never gone together; in fact they are EXACT opposites, religion is an individuals contract with some deity while socialism denies all individualistic thoughts.

Also it is ironic u mention "Christian Socialism" (which is an oxymoron of course)
because it shows that you really dont understand the origins of modern liberal democracy. The writings of Hobbes and Locke played a part but even more than these so did Christianity. Not in the corrupt Popes or religious officials of previous centuries but in that the doctrine of Christianity essentially says all men are equal in the eyes of God and He will only judge them by their moral character, the problem with this tho is your "equality" is only gauranteed in the after-life not while you are still here on earth. Modern democracy (in all thoroughly democratic nations not just the US) is in a sense the seperating of the "religion" of Christianity (that had caused so much strife in the centuries past of Europe) from the "philosophy" and taking it one step further even by bringing it onto earth instead of relinquishing it to the after-life. This is a big reason why the majority of nations that are able to make democracy succeed are Christian, there are a few exceptions like Japan and India but "where it counts" their religions are similar enough in philosophy to Christianity. Islam is as well, the problem with democracy in the middle-east is not the religion but the way it is being implemented by breeding fanaticism and intolerance, similar in many wins to the same fanaticism and intolerance the Catholic Church exhibited in the middle-ages.


There are some good facts tho that brilligator pointed out; the conservative movement is supposed to emphasize smaller government, less laws, and less societal regulations (which makes bush's stance on some issues perplexing). Foreign policy isnt exactly a part of republican or democrat agendas tho, its pretty much confined to an administration. Alot of the misunderstandings between democrats and conservatives stem from communication and credibility issues. As stated above many conservaties stereotype ur average democrat as a far left-wing nut and assume they are socialists, want to abolish religion, etc... Some of this is due to ignorance but some of it Im ashamed to say is due to the poor or in some case radical actions of members of our own party. For instance the NAACP has basically deteriorated into a radical fringe group and someone like Howard Dean is far left from the mainstream democrat. But just like alot of conservaties may get a bad rep from bush's incompetence or some of the far right speakers in the same way alot of mainstream conservatives get a bad view of democrats. Some of the viewpoints above, like "Christian Socialism", not only show ignorance of the subject but are inflammatory in the same way as claims like , "democrats want to abolish religion". If this party is going to make progress in the next few years we cannot embrace fringe elements just because when bush says black they say white.

[Codeblue]

10. Monarchy

They are attempting to "conserve" the old ways. By that I mean the oppressive means by which governments ruled during the middle ages and even into the industrial era.

[mwooldri]

15. Heck, I'd love a constitutional monarchy right now.

Sure, have George Bush as king. Then in a constitutional monarchy he couldn't do anything except ponce around the country looking kingly and supposedly "represent the country".

[Recursion]

11. For that matter...

...what or whom are we "liberating"? The names "liberal" and "conservative" by now are just as arbitrary as "left" and "right" (which IIRC refer to what side of the King Louis XIV's Court different factions sat on). Both seem to be somewhat uneasy coalitions that vary between libertarianism and statism based on the subject. If there's an overriding difference I can see it's that "conservatives" prefer principle-based reasoning and "liberals" prefer results-based reasoning. But that can't be taken too far or too generally.

[tired of the right]

12. They are conserving wealth

for them and their buddies at the expense of everyone else.

[otherlander]

14. We're liberating our minds!

Or maybe... liberating Americans from government controll?

[SeveredMind]

13. They are....

Desperately trying to hold on to archaic traditions that should have been buried during the Victorian Era.

[AbsolutNickUSN]

16. 4 definitions

"I am reminded of four definitions: a radical is a man
with both feet planted firmly in the air.
A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs
who, however, has never learned to walk forward.
A reactionary is a somnambulist walking backwards.
A Liberal is a man who uses his legs and his hands
at the behest the command--of his head."

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

[Ken Burch]

17. Which, of course, reminds me of Ambrose Bierce

"Conservative: a statesman enamored of the existing evils, as opposed to the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others."

(From THE DEVIL'S DICTIONARY)

[5thJames]

18. here's what it means:

The term conservative, when applied to a person when describing their political perspective, means that the person seeks to "conserve" what is already existing. Typically, for an American that means holding to traditional American values. In other words, they're not FOR changing those things.

When you say "they" aren't conserving the Bill of rights, or the environment, or human life...why do you say that?

[uppityperson]

19. what traditional American values do you mean?

[5thJames]

20. I mean:

Specifically, the Judeo-Christian heritage of the USA as a nation. That would include the values that come with it, like traditional marriage, etc. Conservatives seek to retain those values, and that's fundamentally why they call themselves conservatives.

As for the other issues, many who are political conservatives are also strongly in support of resource conservation, and wise use of those resources. This includes recycling, wise land use, etc. That would also be a conservative issue in that such people are interested conserving resources.

[uppityperson]

21. you do realize that this is actually opposite what "conservatives" do?

National debt has gone up, due to spending massively more, not conserving.
Pollution has gone up.
Resource conservation, wise land use, recycling, etc are not values "conservatives" value but things they look down upon. This is a problem with using the term "conservative" to indicate right wing fundamentalists as they pick and chose what to conserve, that which immediately directly best benefits them.

So, next question is are you using "conservative" in its true manner (one whom conserves) or as it has come to be put upon rightwing fundamentalists?

-------------------------------------
Edited to add, from your previous post (a couple back) you ask:"
When you say "they" aren't conserving the Bill of rights, or the environment, or human life...why do you say that?"

Do you know of the Patriot Act, the illegal spying the gvt has done to us, arrests made for wearing anti-war t-shirts? These go against the Bill of Rights. Environment, pollution controls have been decreased since MR.bush in power. Human life: less help for living people, less health care, social service programs cut, etc. "conservatives (rwf=rightwingfundamentalists)" try to preserve life before birth, but have cut all helping social service progams for after birth.

[5thJames]

23. this needs to be qualified

You said, National debt has gone up, due to spending massively more, not conserving.

Sadly, this is true. Yet this sort of behavior is not a conservative behavior. One of the problems that non-conservatives seem to have is that they equate all conservatives with the politicians. Something that you don't seem to know is that not everything the Republicans in Congress do, or everything Bush does, is approved by all conservatives. Myself included.

A few quick facts from the Business and Media Institute (http://www.freemarketproject.org/specialreports/2004/jobs_study/sr20041014.asp):
Unemployment rate:
Clinton 1996 = 5.2%
Bush 2004 = 5.4%

Inflation rate:
Clinton 1996 = 3%
Bush 2004 = 2.7%

Economic growth rate:
Clinton 1996 = 2.2%
Bush 2004 = 3.7%

Still, if you compare spending under two Republican presidents, Reagan and Bush, we can see that there has been a great deal of spending increase under Bush. (See www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0308-16.pdf). This, again, isn't a conservative way of governing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

You said, Do you know of the Patriot Act, the illegal spying the gvt has done to us

The Patriot Act is NOT illegal. Whether we like it or not, the fact is that it's the law of the land, passed by our elected representatives in Congress. Read through the whole wordy thing if you'd like (I only read parts of it), but at the very end you'll see:

"Passed the House of Representatives October 24, 2001.

Attest:

JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk."

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

Not only is it legal, but it's not a new concept. Before GW was elected, there was a program called Echelon, wherein the NSA and foreign agencies were allowed to spy on the American people:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/02/24/60minutes/main164651.shtml

"Everywhere in the world, every day, people's phone calls, emails and faxes are monitored by Echelon, a secret government surveillance network. No, it's not fiction straight out of George Orwell's 1984. It's reality, says former spy Mike Frost in an interview broadcast on 60 Minutes on Sunday, Feb. 27.

'It's not the world of fiction. That's the way it works. I've been there,' Frost tells CBS News 60 Minutes Correspondent Steve Kroft. 'I was trained by you guys,' says the former Canadian intelligence agent, referring to the United States' National Security Agency.

The NSA runs Echelon with Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand as a series of listening posts around the world that eavesdrop on terrorists, drug lords and hostile foreign governments.

But to find out what the bad guys are up to, all electronic communications, including those of the good guys, must be captured and analyzed for key words by super computers.

That is a fact that makes Frost uncomfortable, even though he believes the world needs intelligence gathering capabilities like Echelon. 'My concern is no accountability and nothing, no safety net in place for the innocent people who fall through the cracks," he tells Kroft.'

Nowhere do I see anything about Congress approving of this spying program, and yes, presidents knew about it before GW came into office. THAT is an illegal spying program.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

You said, Resource conservation, wise land use, recycling, etc are not values "conservatives" value but things they look down upon.

This is one reason I said that statements about conservatives need to be qualified. I know that there are big-business, money-is-the-bottom line Republicans; those who would OK mindless development. But again, that's not how all "average Joe" conservatives are. Many of us are very mindful of the fact that we need to conserve our resources, or land, water, etc, etc; and that recycling is a big deal. I've been pro- all those things for years, and so have many of your average conservatives. It's sometimes difficult to do, but please try not to automatically equate some politicians with the every-day man.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

You said, Human life: less help for living people, less health care, social service programs cut, etc. "conservatives (rwf=rightwingfundamentalists)" try to preserve life before birth, but have cut all helping social service progams for after birth.

It is true that public spending is against many conservative principles. This is primarily why I don't like all the spending increases that are happening under Prez Bush. However...it's not true that social service programs have been cut under the current federal government. Referring to a study at www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0308-16.pdf, which compared Reagan to Bush, we see that under Bush, public spending has greatly increased:

Agriculture=8.5%
Commerce=9.6%
Defense=27.6%
Education=60.8%
Energy=22.4%
Health & Human Services=21.4%
Housing & Urban Dev.=6.1%
Interior=23.4%
Justice=11.0%
Labor=56.0%
State=32.5%
Veteran Affairs=29.4%

So then even under the increased spending which I and many conservatives disagree with, social services spending has INCREASED, not decreased. You should be happy about that, shouldn't you?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

You said, Pollution has gone up.

Not true. Taken from Gregg Easterbrook's article, "Why Bush Gets A Bad Rap On Dirty Air; But he still needs to tackle the real problem: greenhouse gases," Time Magazine, September 29, 2003.
"Nothing you hear about worsening air pollution is true. Air pollution is declining under President Bush, just as it declined under Bill Clinton. With the exception of greenhouse gases, trends in air pollution have been favorable for years or decades, says author Gregg Easterbrook.

Air pollution can decline as the population rises because antipollution technology keeps getting better and because the Clean Air Act controls on cars, power plants and factories have been growing stricter for two decades. Most Clean Air Act enforcement continues to become more strict under Bush, says Easterbrook."

[uppityperson]

25. You are picking and choosing bits, what I wrote was...

"Do you know of the Patriot Act, the illegal spying the gvt has done to us, arrests made for wearing anti-war t-shirts? These go against the Bill of Rights."

Are you misunderstanding that these are seperate things that fall into the same category "go against the Bill of Rights"?

Unemployment rates are usually those who are out of work and in a program that counts them as actively looking for it. It is a statistic that is limited.

Air pollution is not declining as much as it was, the rate of decline has stopped.

According to what you post, Social Service spending has increased from Reagan to Mr.bush. This is another statistic that means nothing as comparing Reagan to bush is worthless. They are both conservatives so this means nothing.

"please try not to automatically equate some politicians with the every-day man." This thread is about conservatives, and they are both in power and common-man. Common-man elects those in power according to who they want in power, who holds similar views and conservative values lie in both politicians and commonman.

[BOSSHOG]

22. You mean like conserving ignorance and slavery

and not letting women vote and using the constitution as a weapon against certain citizens of our nation that "conservatives" hate for some non-rational reason? You mean like conserving the thought that the sun revolved around the earth and that global warming is just liberal nonsense. "Traditional American Values" for a conservative means picking and choosing in the bible the passages which justify their hate and ignoring those that might be a tad complicated or inconvenient. Lying to get us into a war; is that a value? Respecting a fetus until it is born, is that a conservative value? Intruding on the privacy of a brain dead woman and her family; is that a conservative value? Picketing the funerals of the war dead, is that a conservative value?

I'm a veteran, longing to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. I look forward to the next "traditional" war. Traditional in the sense that conservatives will get their asses kicked again.

[5thJames]

24. please elaborate

I seriously do not know conservatives who hold most or any of those beliefs. I think I said in a previous post, maybe in a different thread, that I have met conservatives (or so-called) who have wacky behavior and beliefs. They, in my own experience, are not the norm. As with any group, there are those who give the rest a bad name.

One thing I've learned is that when a person will only hang around and discuss with people of like mind, then he tends to be ignorant of those who are different from him. Naturally, he'll tend to have a false or distorted understanding of those same people. I think that's what's happening here, and I'm glad I came along when the original question was asked: "what is a conservative?" (Or actually, "what exactly are they conserving?")

So please tell me what exactly you mean when you say those things. Give me examples that I can relate to, because I do not behave that way, and neither do most conservatives I know.

By the way, this is turning into one of the best discussions I've been a part of in recent times. :thumbs-up:

[BOSSHOG]

26. What exactly do I mean??

"Conservatives" oppose the advancement of science and have for hundreds of years. What exactly don't you understand?
"Conservatives" wanted teri schiavo's husband forced to keep her alive because of their religious beliefs.
"Conservatives" want to use the constitution as a weapon against law abiding tax paying productive citizens by keeping them from getting married because of their religious beliefs and yet maintain the "right" to marry and divorce all they want.
"Conservatives" think its great to destroy social security while it is a horrendous act to burn the flag.
"Conservatives" oppose stem cell research because of their religious beliefs.
"Conservatives" vote mostly for republicans and blather on about fiscal responsibility. Wow, the "conservative" record on fiscal responsibility has been totally fucking outstanding these past six years; to such an extent bush has to brag about a deficit of only 296 billion.
"Conservatives" provide the base support for george bush's war based on lies. He wanted to be a war president, and the flag waving fake patriots cheer him on while our kids continue to die.
"Conservatives" pick and choose available data to support what they believe. If black and white facts are inconvenient or skew their beliefs (plame actually was undercover, iraq did not have wmd, karl rove outed valerie plame, teri schiavo was brain dead, bush intentionally lied, diseases can be transmitted via heterosexual intercourse, and on and on and on) "conservatives" just sweep the facts aside and go on believing.

If you watch any news or read a paper, if only occasionally, I find it incredibly unbelieveable that you would have to ask for examples of what I mean. I am well versed in what those I disagree with believe (those who live in South Mississippi and South Louisiana) and I am not ignorant of their thoughts. They feed my love of country and make me incredibly proud of my service to country and make me active in politics because I do not want them to succeed. Everytime they do our country suffers. The current "conservative" administration is black and white evidence. What exactly don't you understand?

[uppityperson]

27. You ask for specifics, here are a some

You write: "Specifically, the Judeo-Christian heritage of the USA as a nation. That would include the values that come with it, like traditional marriage, etc. Conservatives seek to retain those values, and that's fundamentally why they call themselves conservatives."

Here are some values that came with the heritage of USA as a nation:
White male property owners are the only ones who can vote. Not women, not natives those pesky blacks.
Same with education.
And health care.
And decent paying jobs.
Pick and choose biblical passages which justify your hate and ignoring those that might be a tad complicated or inconvenient (esp regarding women, children, sexuality).

Here are some concrete examples of current conservative values:
Outlawing all abortions, yet not providing enough help for children (healthcare, food, decent affordable childcare so parents can work) after they are born.
Picketing the funerals of soldiers who died in the war.
Lying to get us into a war.
Intruding on the privacy of a brain dead woman and her family.

[goofticket]

28. Spporting the troops...in rhetoric or in deeds.

Support the troops.
We hear the phrase every day.
But we don't hear it as a request. It has become, thanks to the ranting of the conservative media divas, an insult to those who want the troops to come home. It's a cheerleading rally cry of the right. It has little to do with the actual troops in how it’s used today.
Support the troops. A great term, but highly abused. The disgusting conservative use of this phrase, is loud and clear. If you question the Bush plan, or anything to do with Iraq, terrorists or the military...you don't support the troops. Only conservatives are 'qualified' to support the troops. After all, the conservatives planned and designed the war, so they get to take credit for supporting the troops. Liberals have never supported war....well, maybe just this one in Iraq. Conservatives love war, it's profitable and thats were their support stops. Just like a four year old tank that can no longer be repaired.
No, liberals don't like war. In fact, only the fanatical far right likes war. If you'd ask Americans if they would prefer a war over peace talks, the talking part would win hands down. Americans know wars cost lives. Americans have enough experience with wars to know that supporting the troops is doing everything possible to avoid sending them into a war....any war.
If you don't support the troops....you hate America, you are a Bush hater.

If that isn't the most idiotic phrase, I don't know what is.

Supporting the troops means avoiding putting them in danger, at all costs. It means assuring they have, not adequate, but exceptional health care and family support before, during and after conflict. It means providing them with safe protective equipment. It means supporting the actual troops, and not using the troops; to promote a political agenda or discredit opposition to war.
It means making some effort, any effort, to guarantee that when a tour is done. the soldier comes home. He or she has done their part. It doesn't mean sending the soldier back into harm's way, rotation after rotation after rotation.
Supporting the troops means planning and executing a strategy that provides for the shortest tour of duty in combat.
Supporting the troops, as the pro-Bush phrase, by the insulting right wing are an affront to what all Americans know . Especially the troops themselves.
That the best war is the one avoided. Ask a vet about it.
The most noble causes for war are not based on the most questionable of evidences. Genocide, like that in WWII Europe are a noble cause for war. Attacks on our soil, like Pearl Harbor and 911 were noble causes for war.
Sending troops country hopping, willy-nilly, on ill-perceived threats is not a noble cause. Drawn out wars deplete troop efficiency and equipment, something the enemy watches very carefully. We certainly did that with Japan and Germany in WWII. When the enemy sees a force become weaker from depletion, this often results in further conflicts.
This week proved that point.
Iran, North Korea and most other perceived and known enemies of the US, are saber rattling for their own perceived 'noble' causes. They know the US cannot mount other offenses, it has it's hands full on two major fronts.
Fight the war on terror! Who is terror? Terror is a tactic, not an entity. Anything and everything can be terrifying at some point. Defining the enemy is a key in fighting any war. We fight the war on terror but really can't find the enemy.
We are not fighting an enemy, we are fighting an ideology with an army.
Ideological conflict is something no amount of bullets and bombs will change. Only dialogue, compromise and a certain level of respect for different ideologies can protect the world from ideological terrorism. It's not an all or nothing scenario, as the far right claims it to be. We haven't waged war with the Buddhists? or with the entirety of Islam itself. We are dealing with a very small, but dangerously, loud faction of a fringe religious philosophy. By at least making an attempt to understand why this faction; fractured from the main Islamic belief, and trying to see that point of view can we begin to provide a place for both ideologies to exist.
What is most dangerous is refusing to begin that understanding.
But they cut off heads!!! They don't wear uniforms!!! They torture!!!
Good grief! Humans have done that since the beginning of war and they are likely to continue to do so in the future. There is a fine line in arguing that vaporizing someone is far more humane that lopping off their head. Both people die. Both are killed in a horrific manner and someone is going to miss them after they are gone. That is why war is hell.
But to simply discount the enemy as barbaric, or somehow not capable of rational debate in coming to a peaceful conclusion to a conflict is not the sign of competent leadership, nor is it a very human mindset.
It does work well for the conservatives who somehow have come to the conclusion that it is a 100% all or nothing, right or wrong process.
And that is usually as far as they get in the debate. Once their mind is made up thats it. Any and all questions to the contrary are taken as supporting the enemy. It's called attacking the messenger. And that really supports the troops.
It doesn't make the HumVee stronger, it doesn't make the flak vest more bulletproof, it doesn't send the IED or mortar off target thats shot from an enemy bunker.
It just sounds really good.
Pro war cheerleading does not increase the performance of the American military. Troops are not 'inspired' by the likes of Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity, but rather, knowing that their families have enough food and their rent is paid while they serve. Lots of people, especially liberals, work in the social services and support agencies that the troops and their families rely on before, during and after conflict. Conservatives send money to their favorite PAC to make sure the 'agenda' stays the course.
The next time you hear some war-happy right winger make the accusation that someone doesn't 'support the troops'; ask them for money so you can send it to Fort Bragg for the kids of a infantry troop who is on their third tour of duty.

[BOSSHOG]

29. Hello Goofticket

I salute you for your passion. Yes, "Support the Troops" just rolls off the tongues of chickenhawks right before they pop open another beer. Yes neocons support our troops by ensuring they continue to get slaughtered while civilian leadership jacks off looking for someone else to label a traitor. I look forward to more of your passionate posts.