~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I love your definitions and characterizations. Mostly you are right on target. We NEED "brands", though to talk at all politically. What I find sad is that we must talk politics. Politics should not even be in our lives. We elect people to see to the politics. They don't. They subvert the very things we revere. We would be better off without any government, but I know most people of the world think all citizens need other dummies telling them how to live, ergo, I suppose we must have some type of "leadership". What we have ISN'T IT!
WE ELECT PEOPLE TO DO THE GOVERNMENT JOBS FOR US ......WE THE PEOPLE... THEY WORK FOR US... WE THE PEOPLE.
WHEN WE DO NOT DO OUR HOMEWORK ON PEOPLE RUNNING FOR THAT JOB... WE DESERVE WHAT WE GET.... !!
RESEARCHING A CANDIDATE.. HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH COLOR, RELIGION ,, IT HAS TO DO WITH THE CORE OF THE PERSON... WHAT ARE HIS OR HER BELIEF SYSTEM? WHERE WERE THEY TRULY BORN? WHERE DID THEY GO TO SCHOOL?
WHAT CLUBS AND INTERESTS DID THIS PERSON HAVE BEFORE RUNNING FOR OFFICE OF THIS GREAT NATION. ?
IS THIS PERSON GOING TO REPRESENT THIS GREAT COUNTRY AND DEFEND IT WITH EVERY THOUGHT AND ACTION ?
AND ABOUT THE SEPARATION FROM CHURCH AND STATE.....
THEY USE THAT. TO CHOKE US OUT OF WHAT WE BELEIVE. !!!
WASN'T IT OUR FOREFATHERS.. THAT SAID... ONE NATION UNDER GOD ???? FOR LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL..
WAKE UP EVERYONE...! WE ARE BEING JERKED AROUND. BE SMART AND START READING AND RESEARCHING, WE HAVE A MAJOR V**E COMING UP IN 2014 - !!

As to "brands", I seldom think in any detail except "those who cherish individual freedom" and "those who want to control all of us". All of those who want to control the rest of us are in fact collectivists, and it doesn't matter one whit if they are liberals, democrats, progressives, socialists, c*******ts, Marxists, or dictators. All who want to be FREE are not collectivists. We believe in free trade and self responsibility. I could readily use the labels, "freemen" and "collectivists".......I could use those labels because there in no way one can be both.......they are the opposites.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I love your definitions and characterizations. Mostly you are right on target. We NEED "brands", though to talk at all politically. What I find sad is that we must talk politics. Politics should not even be in our lives. We elect people to see to the politics. They don't. They subvert the very things we revere. We would be better off without any government, but I know most people of the world think all citizens need other dummies telling them how to live, ergo, I suppose we must have some type of "leadership". What we have ISN'T IT!

As to "brands", I seldom think in any detail except "those who cherish individual freedom" and "those who want to control all of us". All of those who want to control the rest of us are in fact collectivists, and it doesn't matter one whit if they are liberals, democrats, progressives, socialists, c*******ts, Marxists, or dictators. All who want to be FREE are not collectivists. We believe in free trade and self responsibility. I could readily use the labels, "freemen" and "collectivists".......I could use those labels because there in no way one can be both.......they are the opposites.

For the casual observer of news, navigating the political landscape has proven increasingly difficult with the influx of modern day semantics. Political parties, it seems, rebrand themselves with every 24-hour news cycle. Liberals call themselves progressive. The self-proclaimed, open-minded call themselves independents. Conservatives come with qualifiers – their conservatism is either fiscal or social. Republicans are too busy posturing over who is the next Ronald Reagan to redefine.



Identifying party affiliation begins to get truly difficult when liberals and conservatives cajole under the cloak of moderateness for fear of being labeled either fringe, extreme or radical. Party identity proves to be quite confusing for the apolitical.

Newscasts are littered with a hodgepodge of swappable names – blue dog democrat, tea partier, centrist and libertarian and other nomenclatures. News outlets make the assumption that viewers are well versed enough in the political landscape to decipher revolving party definitions. Outlets opt to gloss over party complexities without clarity or consideration for viewer confusion.

For the record, Blue Dog Democrats are southern state Democrats with a Conservative v****g record. Tea Partiers are limited government proponents who favor responsible taxation. Centrists are interchangeable with Moderates. Libertarians are for individual liberties, including more lenient drug policy, and free markets.

Party committee chairs go to great lengths to frame their brands to escape the negative stereotypes that accompany them. Branding matters, even in the political realm. For example, Republicans would rather not be branded as bigoted, callous or arcane. Many in the Party have come to the realization that if their brand cannot be resuscitated, it must be rebranded or scratched entirely. In the hopes of appearing more lucid like their progressive counterparts, those wise to the stereotypical negativity are leaving the Party in droves for Libertarian pastures.

With the political landscape in a constant state of flux, new, fresh voices emerge; each jockeying to redefine the Party brand under his or her leadership. With focus on more centralized government with the onset on mandated healthcare and increased social spending, President Obama has t***sformed President Clinton’s center left Democrat Party hard left.

Having determined the changing hands of leadership as the definitive factor in Party affiliation, brand and direction, deciphering the labyrinth of the political spectrum still projects to be complex in perpetuity. Deciphering party direction proves even more daunting during the e******n cycle when candidates seek to appear more populist than partisan.

Politics have become more about branding; branding Parties, issues and personalities, than about policy. Intricacies of issue stance have become increasingly inconsequential to the larger brand and are often lost in its shadow. Consumers have their favorite brands and are often loyal to them. The campaign consulting class banks on it.

In 1947, Peter Marshall, a chaplain, said '...because if we don't stand for something, we shall fall for anything.'

The political confusion comes from an inability or refusal to think or reason.

Take the phrase, "Social Conservative," what does that mean?

When you consider that all social programs involve creating, new laws, regulations and bureaucracies, that are eventually paid for, by the taxpayer or consumer, in one form or another. All social programs and initiatives involve a t***sfer of wealth and mostly from the general public which is where most of us are.

NONE OF THAT, IS CONSERVATIVE!

All of this infringes on personal liberty and self determination for the individual, as it always involves a t******r of p***r from the individual to the state.


There is no such thing as a social conservative. It is a thing that does not exist, because it can't exist. If you claim to be a social conservative then you are trying to be in two places at once.
This is a political manoeuvre, it has no basis in fact. You have swallowed the Coolaid.

An American conservative knows that this country was conceived in Liberty, with the proposition that all men are created equal. A conservatives humanity is in the natural laws of man and his God given inalienable rights. An American conservative knows that man is most free with a limited government.
If the state is making decisions for you, then obviously, you can't be making them and God help you, if you come to a different conclusion than the state.

Social programs and laws do not shrink government. Liberals claim man needs more laws because man can't be trusted. But, once a law is made, who enforces them.......PEOPLE........the very essence of the problem liberals say can't be trusted.

The political landscape is confusing, because people refuse to make a stand.
People refuse to exercise simple intelligence, common sense and critical thinking to define their terms.
Because, they refuse to do that, nothing means everything and everything means nothing.
By not defining your terms and what they mean, no one is right, but then, no one can be wrong either.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I love your definitions and characterizations. Mostly you are right on target. We NEED "brands", though to talk at all politically. What I find sad is that we must talk politics. Politics should not even be in our lives. We elect people to see to the politics. They don't. They subvert the very things we revere. We would be better off without any government, but I know most people of the world think all citizens need other dummies telling them how to live, ergo, I suppose we must have some type of "leadership". What we have ISN'T IT!

As to "brands", I seldom think in any detail except "those who cherish individual freedom" and "those who want to control all of us". All of those who want to control the rest of us are in fact collectivists, and it doesn't matter one whit if they are liberals, democrats, progressives, socialists, c*******ts, Marxists, or dictators. All who want to be FREE are not collectivists. We believe in free trade and self responsibility. I could readily use the labels, "freemen" and "collectivists".......I could use those labels because there in no way one can be both.......they are the opposites.

Everyone thinks they cherish freedom,,, well most do,, but
seldom want to discuss or try to figure out what there ideas will actually cause,,,, and if the idea causes damage,, they still seem to stay in effect. A lot of politicians ignore the experience and lessons of the past,,,simply because they mean well. And those who want big cuts simply tell the people on those programs,,, get tough or die,,, that isn't funny when it is you and your family with that choice.

The "cure" for a lot of ills may be bitter,,, like the unemployment thing this week... the answer is "get a job" yes you have to be able to afford to live,,, but you will never get off unemployment until you have to,,,, and someday this fall will get us all.

Everyone thinks they cherish freedom,,, well most do,, but
seldom want to discuss or try to figure out what there ideas will actually cause,,,, and if the idea causes damage,, they still seem to stay in effect. A lot of politicians ignore the experience and lessons of the past,,,simply because they mean well. And those who want big cuts simply tell the people on those programs,,, get tough or die,,, that isn't funny when it is you and your family with that choice.

The "cure" for a lot of ills may be bitter,,, like the unemployment thing this week... the answer is "get a job" yes you have to be able to afford to live,,, but you will never get off unemployment until you have to,,,, and someday this fall will get us all.

In 1947, Peter Marshall, a chaplain, said '...because if we don't stand for something, we shall fall for anything.'

The political confusion comes from an inability or refusal to think or reason.

Take the phrase, "Social Conservative," what does that mean?

When you consider that all social programs involve creating, new laws, regulations and bureaucracies, that are eventually paid for, by the taxpayer or consumer, in one form or another. All social programs and initiatives involve a t***sfer of wealth and mostly from the general public which is where most of us are.

NONE OF THAT, IS CONSERVATIVE!

All of this infringes on personal liberty and self determination for the individual, as it always involves a t******r of p***r from the individual to the state.


There is no such thing as a social conservative. It is a thing that does not exist, because it can't exist. If you claim to be a social conservative then you are trying to be in two places at once.
This is a political manoeuvre, it has no basis in fact. You have swallowed the Coolaid.

An American conservative knows that this country was conceived in Liberty, with the proposition that all men are created equal. A conservatives humanity is in the natural laws of man and his God given inalienable rights. An American conservative knows that man is most free with a limited government.
If the state is making decisions for you, then obviously, you can't be making them and God help you, if you come to a different conclusion than the state.

Social programs and laws do not shrink government. Liberals claim man needs more laws because man can't be trusted. But, once a law is made, who enforces them.......PEOPLE........the very essence of the problem liberals say can't be trusted.

The political landscape is confusing, because people refuse to make a stand.
People refuse to exercise simple intelligence, common sense and critical thinking to define their terms.
Because, they refuse to do that, nothing means everything and everything means nothing.
By not defining your terms and what they mean, no one is right, but then, no one can be wrong either.

Everyone thinks they cherish freedom,,, well most do,, but
seldom want to discuss or try to figure out what there ideas will actually cause,,,, and if the idea causes damage,, they still seem to stay in effect. A lot of politicians ignore the experience and lessons of the past,,,simply because they mean well. And those who want big cuts simply tell the people on those programs,,, get tough or die,,, that isn't funny when it is you and your family with that choice.

The "cure" for a lot of ills may be bitter,,, like the unemployment thing this week... the answer is "get a job" yes you have to be able to afford to live,,, but you will never get off unemployment until you have to,,,, and someday this fall will get us all.

Ve'Hoe, I think there may be a disconnect here. When most of us call for cuts, we call for cuts where real people aren't harmed - I want to see Congress take a paycut before ANYONE ELSE does. I want to see the EPA reined in, as well as all other agencies and bureaus because they are unelected and make horrific edicts we must follow or get fined. I want to see less waste, such as $5000.00 toilets, etc. I want the welfare roles supervised so that ONLY the truly needy get help. I want the c***ts off the rolls. EVERYBODY should want these things cut. Every c***t who receives welfare is c***ting the person who needs it but for budgetary reasons cannot have it. Honesty would be very difficult in DC, but the very least they could do is give it a TRY.

For instance: I once was in charge of Meals on Wheels in my county. The rules from above stated that if a person had a means of obtaining a meal, he was not qualified to have a meal delivered by tax dollars. We assessed regularly. The assessor happened to be sitting in this man's home when a guest arrived - with a bottle of booze. In the conversation it was noted that the guest came DAILY with a bottle of booze for the man. So I cut him off the daily delivered meal. I told him to have the man deliver him a hamburger, or something else to EAT instead of a bottle of booze. He was really angry, but sometimes difficult decisions must be made, and if everyone is too chicken to make those decisions, theft abounds. Greedy people are intensely selfish people - and they should not be enabled in their greed and selfishness.

OTOH, in my community when someone is down and out, the rest of us provide as much help as is possible. When we moved here, a lot of people were down and out and out of work. We put about 12 of them to work immediately, and kept them as long as our money hadn't run out completely. We apologized when we finally did have to let them go. We befriended a younger man, gave him an RV to live in as long as he paid his rent (and we paid him enough he could have afforded it). We loved him - but one month he missed his rent, the next month he missed his rent, and he had quit doing the minor chores we had asked of him. We told him he MUST pay his rent ($250.00) that included all utilities and the internet. He got angry and left us a severely damaged RV.

Most of us are not heartless, but neither are we stupid. I don't trust the government to do ANYTHING well, professionally, or honestly. Please don't ask me to lay down my brain. I want you for a friend. I don't know a single conservative calling for cuts that is not compassionate and helpful to all, especially those in need.