In other words

[kraft-t]

if you aren't Attilla the hun, you must be a liberal.

Those of us labeled liberal are more than likely more conservative than them. Me thinks they knoweth not the correct definition of a conservative versus a liberal. A conservative will fix the bridges. An idiot will refuse to spend the money thinking that is more logical.

[BA Deere]

You`re not a liberal Nox, you`re just playing "devil`s advocate"

[r3020]

---

@bruce MN wrote:

WTH?

 He's quite likely  the closest thing we've ever had here on this forum to an actual conservative.

---

With that definition I will expect to see you to link to some articles from leading conservative economist Paul Krugman.

[hardnox604008]

Conservativism in the tradition was quite non-ideological. Whatever works and austerity isn't in any number of places in real time.

[James22]

Certainly not conservative and not even moderately conservative.  Possibly could defend the label moderate, but personally would entertain the label "moderate or more conservative leaning liberal"; approaching a "blue dog" democrat.

[r3020]

---

@hardnox604008 wrote:

Conservativism in the tradition was quite non-ideological. Whatever works and austerity isn't in any number of places in real time.

---

Austerity is yet to be tried. All that has been tried so far is to close deficits by increasing taxes on the rich. About all you can say for cuts is a few countries have reduced the rate of growth.

[Red Steele]

Bruce is a moderate, and Nox is more conservative, and the rest of us are John Birchers. See how simple that was?

[hardnox604008]

By the standards of the post-war consesus you are approximately correct.

[bruce MN]

Not all of "the rest" of you. 

Birchers were never much a hate driven bunch.  I've never thought that you were either, so you might fit Red.  ('ceptin for  taking farm payments and voting for the occassional Democrat).   Birchers were pragmatic, "this is where we stand", never much for propaganizing or taking disingenious positions.  The Birchers I used to hang out with would hate the Breitbarts and Drudges and Hannitys of today

. 

Only a very few of you would take much energy or hope from the way the JBS goes about things

[gough whitlam]

---

@r3020 wrote:

---

@hardnox604008 wrote:

Beware.

The gun industry also doesn't care if it destroys the republican party.

It cares about selling guns, period.

---

I don't care about saving the repub party. Oh yes you do and you see them as a sure passage to keep it that way. I care about preserving my right to keep and bear arms.

---

The saddest part of it all is the NRA threatened those in marginal districts to vote against it or they would destroy them at the next election.  The NRA have effectively denied the american people of having a debate about tighter security checks. They have denied them the democracy they bellow about when it comes under threat. But isn't it strange how all that is forgotten when it comes to those blessed guns.  People will forgo all the wars and deaths to keep the old blunder buster of dad's grandfather in the cupboard.

Supporting the NRA is basically supporting a tyrannical body who now effectively control both houses of government.  Now - let's not have any more talk of Obama being a tyrant when all he wanted to do, at this point, is have a debate about it. That is what has been denied and you all agreed to oppose anything to do with a government check to test your sanity and suitability to own a gun.  I can answer all that.