Thursday July 29, 2010 | The Young Conservative’s Field Guide

July 27, 2010 at 10:15 am | Posted in Coming Up | 13 Comments

Last week, we met the author of Answering Back, a guide for liberals when engaging in a discussion about politics. This time, we meet the young co-author of a similar guide book, The Young Conservative’s Field Guide. Brenton Stranksy joins the conversation to talk about how he’s informing young people with a conservative point of view about the issues so that they can better discuss politics.
Brenton Stranksy
– Co-Author, The Young Conservative’s Field Guide

Click here to add and read comments

Listen to Show



RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. Thanks in advance for having this show, it’s rare (although not unprecedented) for CT to devote an hour to the “right” way of thinking. I am anxious for Mike to make his favorite accusation that Republicans called Democrats “unpatriotic”. I hope the guest makes him back up that claim with example and if he can cite someone sometime saying that then compare it with Republicans being called everything from Teabaggers to Nazis by the President and Speaker of the House.

  2. Ask him where’s all those jobs from the Tax Cuts, for the wealthy as those few pennies for the masses went directly into the gas tank even before the cuts took place! Ask him where were the voices of the moderates or those who still call themselves fiscal conservatives as their congresses were rubber stamping not only the war budgets, off the government books, but billions more! Ask him why they never asked for sacrifice, in rubber stamping, as to the greater influx of veterans not only care but what the country promises to those of us who serve while calling everyone not agreeing with them names and actually cutting military and veterans care budgets, i.e. Walter Reed “Oh it’s closing soon, no need to invest more maintenance monies!”! I could go on, but it’s all in the congressional records of what they don’t do as those who support them say nothing!!

    • Mr. Starowicz,

      Since you questions were not directly asked, I’d refer you to the guest’s recent article in the American Thinker regarding “Tax cuts for the rich”.

  3. Mike, your guest just quoted Grover Cleveland as a “Democratic president”. Either he is being deliberately misleading, or he needs to do more research. Back then, Democrats were the equivalent of modern-day Republicans. Grover was pro-business, anti-tax, etc. His free-reign fiscal approach led to a SEVERE NATIONAL DEPRESSION, the Panic of 1893. Does that sound familiar?

    Thanks, Mike, you are awesome!

  4. Where does you guest fall on social issues? It always befuddles me that conservatives want less government in their lives except when it comes to women’s reproductive choices and GLBT issues. Where do young conservatives stand?

  5. Mr. Sealey,
    I think that was Mr. Stransky’s point, this isn’t your daddy’s Democrat Party.

  6. Does he agree or not with the fact that you help others to prosper and improve everyones finances?

    if your guest would be born in a third world country and did not have the opportunity to be educated, I don’t think he would concider his way of thinking fair to someone that did not have the opportunities that he have had.


  7. I will point out to your guest that the FDIC came about as a result of the Great Depression. Another situation where banks and investment firms engaged in questionable practices in an effeort to maximiize profits.

  8. There is no hope for us. Mr Stranksy, a fiscal conservative and social libertarian, is respectfully and intelligently offering solutions to our country’s fiscal careening down a hill out of control and heading over a cliff. Mike Collins’ and the comments above are complaining about the solution’s effect on their comfort during the ride.

    Get out of debt, stock food and ammunition.

  9. Mr. Stransky testified that many vital questions were purposely excluded from his book. War-profiteering and environmental rape were strangely absent. He instructs the young commercially minded amoralist to focus only upon his main chances for capitalist profit without regard for the community. This is balderdash because government creates the system of law and infrastructure the capitalist uses to succeed. (Then these “winners” refuse to pay their share.) My main gripe is that government, dominated by the wealthy class, favors the winners over people who perform the “real work.” Competition would require a meritocracy, which has been negated by “networking.” And all of us have to live with the diminished life quality deregulation produces. (Maybe that’s why so many boys who idealize wealth are also fascinated by interplanetary travel. They like to foul the nest, but refuse to do any housekeeping.) Mr. Stransky exhibits a Peter Pan personality problem, even as he cuts up to impress his cruel masters in the Oligarchy.

  10. I love these vague, generic and baseless terms like: “War-profiteering and environmental rape”; “capitalist profit without regard for the community”; “real work”; “cruel masters in the Oligarchy”.

    As Mr. Slayton wrote, Mr. Stransky did a good job of “respectfully and intelligently offering solutions” and he did it with specificity instead of conspiracy driven black helicopter delusions.

  11. Mr. Stransky purported to base his discussion on data and facts, not emotion. All well and good. But if his data and facts are based on a false interpretation, the results probably are false or misleading. And his intrepretation is wrong, altho it gives him the results his emotion seeks.
    He is wrong in co-mingling congress’s spending taxes with trust fund disbursements by the Social Security Administration. He spoke at length about his dislikes with Social Security, a program that has trillions of reserves to keep the program solvent for the next 37 years without changing current procedures. It appears he assumes the program’s trustees will make no effort to adjust to changing conditions, letting it fail in 2047. What does he think trustee means?

    Considering government spending, not co-mingled with trust fund disbursements, gives a very different picture of expense percentages. Military expenditures become a not-so-negligible 48% of expenditures. That is 30% for current DOD expenses and 18% for past military obligations which include veterans’ benefits and interest on debt incurred by past borrowed military spending.

    This 48% he passes off as if it were natural or normal. His fact base neglects to show that the #1 military big spender exceeds the #2, China, 10-to-1, and also exceeds the total of rest of the entire world. Is this a point to pass off a minor?

    Mike asked Mr. Stansky, “When did you become a conservative?” The answer was when he got his first paycheck. I remember mine, with the deductions for federal taxes, state taxes and FICA. What was FICA and why did it take my money? were my questions. One needs to learn the difference between Gross and Net pay and learn to appreciate the benefits this land provides.

    And altho this land is thought to have 50 states, several officially are commonwealths, a name fitting for the objective of governments. Commonwealth would be a good concept for Mr. Stansky to explore. I hope that his efforts to understand, clarify and promote ideas of good government will mature and stand on a more reasonable intrepretation of raw data in his future books.

  12. Mr. Zeeso, you wrote: “He spoke at length about his dislikes with Social Security, a program that has trillions of reserves to keep the program solvent for the next 37 years without changing current procedures. It appears he assumes the program’s trustees will make no effort to adjust to changing conditions, letting it fail in 2047. What does he think trustee means?”

    I may be confused but I thought I heard Mr. Stransky correct Mike on that very point. I thought he specifically said he was working under the assumption that the obligation would be met. Did I miss it? Also, it is my understanding that there are no reserves and the day of reckoning is not 37 years away. Have I been completely snookered? The best I can tell there has been no effort to adjust to changing conditions to this point. It’s the third rail, GWB was vilified for even suggesting change. Your comments are interesting, please clarify.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at
Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: