What a conservative actually is

[Bob]

My First 50 Years In The Conservative Movement: Reflections and Observations

By Don Feder

March 17, 2014

It's been 50 years since the Goldwater campaign, when conservatism as a political force came of age.

This year also marks my first 50 years the conservative movement.

Like many conservatives of my generation, it started with the Arizonan's quixotic quest for the White House. I was too young to vote, but headed my high school chapter of Students for Goldwater. One thing the campaign should have taught us is that it's not enough to hold the right positions. You need be able to articulate them without sounding like a cross between Vlad the Impaler and Crazy Guggenheim.

The one bright spot in an otherwise dismal campaign was a late October speech ("A Time for Choosing") by an ex-actor who 17 years later became our greatest president of the 20th century.

Although I didn't know it at the time, with the Goldwater campaign, I had enlisted for life. In college, I started a chapter of Young Americans for Freedom at my alma mater, Boston University. YAF was then the largest and most active national conservative organization. Eventually, I helped to start YAF chapters at a dozen Massachusetts colleges and universities.

In the 1960s, I encountered a neo-Marxist movement called the New Left, which would become the most corrupting force in American politics. With the triumph of Alinsky disciple Barack Hussein Obama, its banner now flies over the White House.

In the 1970s, I joined the burgeoning anti-tax movement, becoming the first executive director of Massachusetts Citizens for Limited Taxation. I helped defeat a graduated state income tax and was involved with a property-tax cutting initiative called Prop 2 ½. That was followed by two years on the West Coast running the Second Amendment Foundation, where we fought to preserve a constitutional right the left claimed was nonexistent.

That led to 19 years as a columnist (lightly syndicated) and editorial writer atThe Boston Herald (1983-2002). During those years, The Herald published over 2,200 of my columns.

Since then, I've been a free-lance writer, media consultant and communications director of the World Congress of Families. To recap, since 1964, I've been part of the campus-conservative, anti-tax, gun-owners rights, and family-values movements, while championing conservatism as a commentator.

I'm not boasting – others have contributed far more – but I have been around, fought for diverse causes and experienced the best and worst of a movement which has shaped America more than any other in the post-War era.

Here are the lessons I've learned along the way, most of which you won't hear on talk radio or read in the blogosphere.

1. Many who call themselves conservatives have a comic-book view of conservatism. Talk to anyone under 35 at the Conservative Political Action Conference (the annual orgy of self-congratulation and muddled thinking just ended) and you're likely to hear the following: "I'm an economic conservative." (In other words, "I have no idea of what a conservative is.") "I don't care about marriage, abortion and stuff like that." ("I'm a conservative who doesn't care about morality, the family and protecting innocent human life.") Ask what they believe and the answer you're likely to get is "Freedom, freedom, freedom! We need to cut taxes and have a smaller government." This is a pathetic reductionism that tries to distill two centuries of conservative thought, from Edmund Burke to Russell Kirk, to "Government bad. Fortune 500 good!" This is to authentic conservatism what a sad clown done with paint-by-numbers is to Rembrandt.

2. Our cause is faith, family and freedom. These are building blocks. We start with faith, because liberty, morality and human nature (on which the first two are based) are of God. The family because it is the foundation of social order and the cradle of civilization. Freedom because it gives us the chance to find our way to God, and the ability to have families and make life's most important decisions.

3. Conservatives are patriots, not nationalists. We love America; we don't worship the nation state. We understand that, internationally, America isn't always right. A nationalist says: "My country right or wrong." A patriot says: "I love my country and will strive to see that it's in the right."

4. Conservatives believe in the concept of American exceptionalism – that America is unique in its contributions to freedom, prosperity and civilization, at home and abroad. And that, for more than two centuries, America has blessed humanity – materially and spiritually. You can disagree with the patriotic consensus on almost anything else – including defense and foreign policy – but dispute this, and you're merely a resident of the United States and not an American.

5. Conservatives believe in representative government, not democracy.The Founding Fathers disdained democracy (or "mobocracy" as they called it) which is why the word is not to be found in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution. The latter speaks of securing "the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." As America has become more of a democracy and less of a republic, we've become less free. De Tocqueville warned that democracy becomes a nation's undoing when the majority discovers it can vote itself benefits out of the treasury (out of the pockets of the more productive). Any limitation on governmental power – like the Bill of Rights – is anti-democratic, which is why the left keeps telling us that the Constitution is outmoded.

6. Conservatives aren't libertarians or soft anarchists. Libertarians and conservatives support the free market. That's where the similarities end. Libertarians (utopians of the right) believe in the separation of morality and government, as if such was even possible. A consistent libertarian opposes laws against drugs, prostitution, child pornography, abortion and euthanasia, and even age of consent laws. But, without a moral foundation, liberty becomes license. (John Adams explained: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.") The type of "freedom" libertarians advocate would lead to an unraveling of the social order, which would eventually result in a new tyranny, as the masses clamor to escape the chaos libertarians have unleashed. Libertarians understand the human drive for freedom, but miss the corresponding drives for security and order. The business of conservatives is to balance the three.

7. Private property and the free market lead to prosperity and are bulwarks against tyranny – The genius of the free market can be seen in comparing the economies of North and South Korea, East and West Germany (before reunification), and Costa Rica and Cuba. In the U.S., states with lower taxes and less regulation have more robust economies and better job growth. Private property and the free market also lead to a diffusion of power, one reason the concentration of power in Washington over the past century – which has accelerated under Obama -- is so dangerous. The power to tax and regulate can easily lead to control over every human activity – from how we raise our children to our speech and even our thoughts. The current regime would put the nation's health care in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats, literally giving them the power of life and death.

8. There is no conservative foreign policy, though there are some guiding principles. Isolationism and interventionism is a false dichotomy. If the Founding Fathers were inveterate isolationists, why did Jefferson send the Marines to the shores of Tripoli in the first decade of the 19th century? Sometimes, intervention in foreign conflicts is unavoidable. (World War II, Korea and Vietnam being cases in point.) And sometimes, the net result of intervention is building a better infrastructure for the Taliban or creating another Muslim republic in the Balkans. The Crimea? It hard to imagine a region whose fate is less related to our national interest. (Outer Mongolia? Fiji?) All intervention doesn't lead to a quagmire, and every crisis isn't Munich. Here are a few principles on when to intervene and how: 1. Don't use the U.S. military like the Peace Corps – an international force of community organizers. 2. Don't make threats you're not prepared to follow through on. 3. Even when our just national interests are at stake, apply as little force as necessary. Military intervention should always be the last resort. 4. A thug with an ideology is always more dangerous than a thug without one. 5. Support your friends; frustrate your foes. 6. The world is a perilous place. It always has been. Without a strong military, we will lose everything.

Part 1

[Bob]

Part 2

9. Islam is the principal external threat to America. Islam is as much an ideology as a religion. For most of its 1,300-year history, its goal has been conquest – a worldwide caliphate. (By comparison, communism and fascism are the new bullies on the block.) In normative Islam, there can be no separation of the political and spiritual. (Freedom of conscience, prized in the West, doesn't exist.) It's no coincidence that terrorism comes almost exclusively from the Islamic world – the Muslim Brotherhood and Tehran, Hamas and Hezbollah, al-Azhar University and al-Qaeda, Shiite, Sunni and Wahabi. Churches and synagogues don't preach holy war.

10. Leftism is the principal internal threat to America. Liberalism has morphed into a monstrosity which would have been unrecognizable to the liberals of old. Today, its drive for conformity by crushing dissent is relentless. With speech codes, anti-discrimination legislation, IRS harassment, and social sanction (political correctness) – and forcing abortion, contraception and homosexual "marriage" on believers – it has created a new totalitarianism, a drive to dominate every aspect of life and try to reshape human nature (the age-old dream of totalitarians). This is no longer a war of ideas but a struggle to preserve civilization.

11. The GOP is a necessary evil. The conservative movement has principles. The Republican Party has positions which it dangles before unsuspecting voters. There isn't an issue on which the party isn't willing to betray one or another of its core constituencies – from life and the family, to spending and immigration. The reward the Tea Parties got for delivering a Republican victory in 2010 ranged from sneering contempt to outright hostility by establishment Republicans. The "conservatism" of the GOP is transitory – until the next opinion poll do us part.

12. The Republican Party is all we have. A conservative third-party, which would do more than collect protest votes, is an illusion. The last major party to emerge from the ashes of one that failed is the GOP of the 1850s. That was before the age of mass media and billion-dollar budgets for presidential campaigns. The conservative goal should be a hostile takeover of the Republicans. We should enter the primaries, full force, to nominate the right candidates. Once they're elected, we should maintain unremitting pressure to keep them honest. We should take every opportunity to defeat RINOs, to weaken the establishment's hold on the party, even if it means voting for Democrats in general elections. In 1964, the enemy was George Romney and Nelson Rockefeller. By 2012, it was Mitt Romney and Karl Rov-efeller.

For all our shortcomings, conservatives are the only political force interested in rational analysis and open debate. Minds on the left are closed so tight that they might as well be hermetically sealed. "The discussion is over" should be stamped on their foreheads. "It's time to move forward on me telling you what to do – and you doing it."

In 1964, American culture was still relatively sane. Today, the savages make movies, report the news, control corporate boardrooms and run the public schools. America's survival depends on the triumph of conservatism.


Don Feder is a former Boston Herald writer who is now a political/communications consultant. He also maintains his own website, DonFeder.com.

[kilgram]

Well, it proves my points about conservatism.

A reactionary ideology that defends the tradition, religious, antidemocratic (and the lie that countries are becoming more democratic is so laughable, because all countries have light representative democracies, that is pretty authoritarian systems). Freedom? LOL defending faith, family (obviously traditional family) goes against any idea of freedom.

About the nonsense of Islam. Do you not notice that Christianism as it is portrayed by Conservative is exactly the same as Islam? Islam is a religion as Christianism.

In conclusion, conservatism is exactly what I say about them, a bunch of fascists. Literally, I don't see difference. Nationalists (patriotism or nationalism are exactly the same shit), traditionalists, ultrareligious, pro-authoritarian systems.

[Refugee]

An excellent assessment Bob. Now it needs someone to explain each point though, not from a uniquely American perspective, but as it applies to the western world.

[Libhater]

I've been reading Don Feder since the daze he had articles in the 'Conservative Chronicle'. I had also read the
only Conservative newspaper up in Boston...the 'Boston Herald' in which Feder had a daily column.

His points about Conservatism and of liberalism for that matter were right on point.

I especially liked the point in #6 where he said "Libertarians understand the human drive for freedom, but
miss the corresponding drives for security and order." Oh how I've been exposing that fact about libertarians
Rand and Ron Paul here at this forum for a long time now.


Don also mentioned how interventionism is needed at times by providing us with a few examples from
our American history.


Excellent piece as it not only details the Conservative love for freedom, but exposes the Alinsky leftists
as those who work hard at dismantling those freedoms we fought so hard to secure.

[zelmo1234]

Well, it proves my points about conservatism.

A reactionary ideology that defends the tradition, religious, antidemocratic (and the lie that countries are becoming more democratic is so laughable, because all countries have light representative democracies, that is pretty authoritarian systems). Freedom? LOL defending faith, family (obviously traditional family) goes against any idea of freedom.

About the nonsense of Islam. Do you not notice that Christianism as it is portrayed by Conservative is exactly the same as Islam? Islam is a religion as Christianism.

In conclusion, conservatism is exactly what I say about them, a bunch of fascists. Literally, I don't see difference. Nationalists (patriotism or nationalism are exactly the same shit), traditionalists, ultrareligious, pro-authoritarian systems.

Totally missed the point! But at least you were attacking the message! That is a change for liberals

[Refugee]

I've been reading Don Feder since the daze he had articles in the 'Conservative Chronicle'. I had also read the
only Conservative newspaper up in Boston...the 'Boston Herald' in which Feder had a daily column.

His points about Conservatism and of liberalism for that matter were right on point.

I especially liked the point in #6 where he said "Libertarians understand the human drive for freedom, but
miss the corresponding drives for security and order." Oh how I've been exposing that fact about libertarians
Rand and Ron Paul here at this forum for a long time now.


Don also mentioned how interventionism is needed at times by providing us with a few examples from
our American history.


Excellent piece as it not only details the Conservative love for freedom, but exposes the Alinsky leftists
as those who work hard at dismantling those freedoms we fought so hard to secure.

I've not come across this Don Feder guy before, but he's one I'll search out. Now and again you come across people like this, that are so obvious that amidst all the lies, half truths and indoctrination, the simplicity and common sense stands out like a beacon.

[Codename Section]

I agree with all that which is why I get pissed off when lumped in with conservatives. I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I'm not a conservative.

[Refugee]

My quick off the cuff interpretation of point 9.

Islam is a vicious and nasty cult that arose in the deserts of central Asia. The Old Testament is equally so with is references to child sacrifices and total subservience. Muslim fundamentalist terrorism today is what the inquisition and crusades were to the Christian religion centuries ago. Times change and science and the age of enlightenment have adapted the Christian religion to suit modern era’s; not so for Islam. Stonings, mass murder, public hangings, beheadings . . . is seen as normal and it’s why no one has been able to bring the concept of democracy to Muslim lands, which is as much a failing of those who think it achievable, than those it’s meant to convince.

Europe, where the democratic experiment to convince has been tried is a huge failure and not one country has been able to assimilate Muslims within its indigenous populations.

Expecting Islam to accept a democracy is like taking someone from the Middle Ages, dropping them into an advanced first world society and expecting them to behave according to the rules of the society they're in. It just doesn’t work.

http://www.islam-watch.org/ (http://www.islam-watch.org/)
A site for ex-Muslims and criticisms of Islam.
http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/islamization-of-america.html (http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/islamization-of-america.html)
Islam as it applies to the U.S.

[Chris]

I agree with all that which is why I get pissed off when lumped in with conservatives. I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I'm not a conservative.


The confusion is there's two kinds of conservatism, even from the emergence of the new conservatives in the 50s, that between more traditional conservatives who we might represent by Kirk, and the more libertarian leaning ones who we might represent by Buckley. There were attempts by Buckley and Frank Meyer, but rejected by Kirk and others. It was the libertarian side that gave us Goldwater, and that lead to a semi-fusion under Reagan. Republicans tend to embrace both factions early in each election cycle, but reject the libertarian faction in the end, like they did Ron Paul. Rand might change that.

The OP is standard Kirkian conservatism.

[Spectre]

That OP and its sequel was so perfect and nail-on-head awesome it gave me a hard-on!!!!:laugh:

It described me to a 't'!!!!

[kilgram]

The confusion is there's two kinds of conservatism, even from the emergence of the new conservatives in the 50s, that between more traditional conservatives who we might represent by Kirk, and the more libertarian leaning ones who we might represent by Buckley. There were attempts by Buckley and Frank Meyer, but rejected by Kirk and others. It was the libertarian side that gave us Goldwater, and that lead to a semi-fusion under Reagan. Republicans tend to embrace both factions early in each election cycle, but reject the libertarian faction in the end, like they did Ron Paul. Rand might change that.

The OP is standard Kirkian conservatism.
In my opinion the OP is the correct definition of conservatism. The "other conservative" should leave to use that term. They are more linked to Liberalism than Conservatism.

For this reason I believe that the American terms are a bit twisted.

The OP definition is closer to what always I've studied about what is conservatism.

[Perianne]

That OP and its sequel was so perfect and nail-on-head awesome it gave me a hard-on!!!!:laugh:

It described me to a 't'!!!!
Spectre, has it been a while for you? :)

[Perianne]

Here is what a conservative actually is: Perianne. Perianne = conservative = Perianne, 100% to the core and danged happy about it.

[Spectre]

Spectre, has it been a while for you? :)

They come easily to me, I put Tabasco sauce on everthing....:laugh:

[Perianne]

They come easily to me, I put Tabasco sauce on everthing....:laugh:

lol

[patrickt]

If the OP wishes to exclude atheists, that's fine. I really enjoy reading about "real" conservatives, and "real" communists, and "real" Christians, and "real" liberals.

[Spectre]

I would not exclude atheists. I'm not a Christian or conventionally religious myself.

[Perianne]

I would not exclude atheists. I'm not a Christian or conventionally religious myself.

Someone can be conservative and not be a Christian.

[The Xl]

Yeah, we know, you guys are the Pepsi to the liberals Coke. A bunch of big government statists.

[Spectre]

Anarchists everywhere these days....

[The Xl]

Anarchists everywhere these days....

I'm a libertarian.

Meanwhile, tell me how you're for freedom while spending like a drunk sailor, forcing morality via legislation, spending money on bullshit wars, etc.

Progressives, the lot of you. Just a slightly different flavor.

[Cigar]

https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-9/969943_722798927772638_36303001_n.jpg

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=722798927772638&set=a.362561537129714.96045.360781383974396&type=1&theater

[nic34]

Like many conservatives of my generation, it started with the Arizonan's quixotic quest for the White House. I was too young to vote, but headed my high school chapter of Students for Goldwater.

Same here..... but I grew up.

[nic34]

I'm a libertarian.

Meanwhile, tell me how you're for freedom while spending like a drunk sailor, forcing morality via legislation, spending money on bullshit wars, etc.

Progressives, the lot of you. Just a slightly different flavor.

Another that misunderstands left terminology.....


spending money on bullshit wars,



That would be the neo-cons for the most part, and blue dogs...... from the con-servative side of the spectrum....the right....

[Chris]

Another that misunderstands left terminology.....



That would be the neo-cons for the most part, and blue dogs...... from the con-servative side of the spectrum....the right....


Blue dogs are Democrats, nic. Though they do lean conservative. My dad's a blue dog Democrat, from the old days.

[Chris]

https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-9/969943_722798927772638_36303001_n.jpg

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=722798927772638&set=a.362561537129714.96045.360781383974396&type=1&theater



The question was "What a conservative actually is" not a Republican, which are two different animals altogether.

[Matty]

https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-9/969943_722798927772638_36303001_n.jpg

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=722798927772638&set=a.362561537129714.96045.360781383974396&type=1&theater
If liberals knew a damn thing about family planning they wouldn't need abortion. Just saying!

[Mister D]

The question was "What a conservative actually is" not a Republican, which are two different animals altogether.

Since nic34 thanked that post I'd like him to identify which conservatives or Republicans support "rampages" and "starvation". When he is done with that I'll ask where "starvation" actually exists.

[Mister D]

If liberals knew a damn thing about family planning they wouldn't need abortion. Just saying!

There are quite a few loons on this site who for various reasons think poor women should reproduce as they please.

[Mister D]

Same here..... but I grew up.

Into what? A guy who says he admires Barry Goldwater?

[junie]

There are quite a few loons on this site who for various reasons think poor women should reproduce as they please.


what's the alternative...???

[Chris]

what's the alternative...???


Responsibility? Nah, that would never do.

[nic34]

Since @nic34 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=572) thanked that post I'd like him to identify which conservatives or Republicans support "rampages" and "starvation". When he is done with that I'll ask where "starvation" actually exists.

A little 2-year-old boy came to the hospital hungry, not just for dinner, but every day of his young life. He is smaller than he should be and his organs, including his brain, are not developing fully. And he lives in Boston, one of America's most prosperous cities.

Doctors at Boston Medical Center's Grow Clinic, which provides assistance to children diagnosed with "failure to thrive," say they have seen a dramatic increase in the number of children they treat who are dangerously thin.

"What's so hard is that a lot of families are working so hard," said Dr. Megan Sandel, an associate professor of pediatrics and public health at BMC. "They are working jobs. They are earning money and their dollars just don't go far enough."

That is life for nearly 15 million children living in poverty in the U.S., according to the National Center for Children in Poverty.
Some of their stories were depicted in first-person picture stories by 40 women in Philadelphia who documented their family life for a project called "Witnesses to Hunger." It was a graphic record of what it is like to live in crowded bedrooms and open a largely empty refrigerator and pantry that is nearly bare.

Pauline S. told ABC News that while she had some macaroni, Spaghetti-Os, noodles, and peanut butter and jelly in her pantry tonight, the food would be gone by next week.

"It really hurts being a mother to see and to feel the hurt for my children," she said. "Not being able to give them what they want and not being able to have everything that other children have -- it hurts a lot."

The number of children living in poverty in the U.S. is up nearly 20 percent from 2000, according to the NCCP, because of higher unemployment and foreclosures. It's a problem across the nation but children are the worst off in Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi. They fare better in New Hampshire, Minnesota and Massachusetts.

U.S. food banks say they face slow and steady starvation rather than sudden African famine.

"We talk about global hunger and we have extended tummies and we have sad eyes," said Marie Scannell, executive director of the Food Bank of Somerset County in New Jersey. "That's not what you'll see. For instance, in Somerville, N.J., you'll see sadness in the children's eyes. That's really the worst part for us."

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/US/hunger-children-america-slow-steady-starvation/story?id=14328390

Screw minimum wage, right?

[Mister D]

A little 2-year-old boy came to the hospital hungry, not just for dinner, but every day of his young life. He is smaller than he should be and his organs, including his brain, are not developing fully. And he lives in Boston, one of America's most prosperous cities.

Doctors at Boston Medical Center's Grow Clinic, which provides assistance to children diagnosed with "failure to thrive," say they have seen a dramatic increase in the number of children they treat who are dangerously thin.

"What's so hard is that a lot of families are working so hard," said Dr. Megan Sandel, an associate professor of pediatrics and public health at BMC. "They are working jobs. They are earning money and their dollars just don't go far enough."

That is life for nearly 15 million children living in poverty in the U.S., according to the National Center for Children in Poverty.
Some of their stories were depicted in first-person picture stories by 40 women in Philadelphia who documented their family life for a project called "Witnesses to Hunger." It was a graphic record of what it is like to live in crowded bedrooms and open a largely empty refrigerator and pantry that is nearly bare.

Pauline S. told ABC News that while she had some macaroni, Spaghetti-Os, noodles, and peanut butter and jelly in her pantry tonight, the food would be gone by next week.

"It really hurts being a mother to see and to feel the hurt for my children," she said. "Not being able to give them what they want and not being able to have everything that other children have -- it hurts a lot."

The number of children living in poverty in the U.S. is up nearly 20 percent from 2000, according to the NCCP, because of higher unemployment and foreclosures. It's a problem across the nation but children are the worst off in Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi. They fare better in New Hampshire, Minnesota and Massachusetts.

U.S. food banks say they face slow and steady starvation rather than sudden African famine.

"We talk about global hunger and we have extended tummies and we have sad eyes," said Marie Scannell, executive director of the Food Bank of Somerset County in New Jersey. "That's not what you'll see. For instance, in Somerville, N.J., you'll see sadness in the children's eyes. That's really the worst part for us."

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/US/hunger-children-america-slow-steady-starvation/story?id=14328390

Screw minimum wage, right?

Uh, @nic34 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=572) , the median household income in Somerville NJ is around $70,000. Moreover, Somerset is one of the wealthiest counties in the state.


The Census Bureau's 2006-2010 American Community Survey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Community_Survey) showed that (in 2010 inflation-adjusted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_adjustment) dollars) median household income (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income) was $69,836 (with a margin of error of +/- $5,384) and the median family income was $80,461 (+/- $9,281).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerville,_New_Jersey#2010_Census

But no...we'll address the second question when you address the first.


Since @nic34 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=572) thanked that post I'd like him to identify which conservatives or Republicans support "rampages" and "starvation".

[Chris]

Screw minimum wage, right?

If you don't screw min wage then you'll see more in poverty.

[The Xl]

If you don't screw min wage then you'll see more in poverty.

Truthfully, as long as we have an ever inflating currency, the min wage is kinda necessary. They'll be in poverty, regardless. Working for 4 dollars an hour isn't going to do shit when the cost of everything keeps increasing.

The whole system needs an overhaul.

[nathanbforrest45]

It seems to me that libertarian centers on the "Outback Philosophy of Life" "No rules, just right" That quite simply will not work in the long run. Even Ayn Rand, certainly not in favor of any religious beliefs, states any system must be deeply rooted in a firm moral and philosophical basis. Without that bedrock your "no rules, just right" becomes another cliche "The person who stands for nothing will fall for anything"

[Spectre]

This extreme anarcho-libertarianism is a symptom of mental disorder, and TOTALLY alien to the conservative tradition.

[nathanbforrest45]

https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-9/969943_722798927772638_36303001_n.jpg

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=722798927772638&set=a.362561537129714.96045.360781383974396&type=1&theater



deflection
alert

[nathanbforrest45]

https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-9/969943_722798927772638_36303001_n.jpg



https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=722798927772638&set=a.362561537129714.96045.360781383974396&type=1&theater


"warning warning"
"deflection
alert"

[The Xl]

This extreme anarcho-libertarianism is a symptom of mental disorder, and TOTALLY alien to the conservative tradition.

Yes, because distributing money to special interests, taking away civil liberties, and fighting immoral, costly wars is totally sane, noble, and moral.

Right.

[Spectre]

Yes, because distributing money to special interests, taking away civil liberties, and fighting immoral, costly wars is totally sane, noble, and moral.

Right.

Yes, too much of that IS happening, but guess what: you don't cure cancer with a dose I if cyanide

[nathanbforrest45]

Yes, because distributing money to special interests, taking away civil liberties, and fighting immoral, costly wars is totally sane, noble, and moral.

Right.


None of these are conservative values. Once again deflection becomes the weapon of the ignorant.

[The Xl]

None of these are conservative values. Once again deflection becomes the weapon of the ignorant.

Anything contrary to those values are being preached by libertarians, which you people do not align yourself with.

Most of the things stated are code words for big government, anyway.

[The Xl]

Yes, too much of that IS happening, but guess what: you don't cure cancer with a dose I if cyanide

This is what your party is and has been for a long time. You are the poison.

[junie]

There are quite a few loons on this site who for various reasons think poor women should reproduce as they please.


what's the alternative...???


Responsibility? Nah, that would never do.


personal responsibility enforced by the government...?

[nathanbforrest45]

personal responsibility enforced by the government...?

You mean like motorcycle helmets and seat belts in automobiles?

[junie]

You mean like motorcycle helmets and seat belts in automobiles?


no i mean like reproductive freedom in direct response to the claim of its supposed LUNACY.


i understand the arguments on those other issues but they don't bother me as much.

driving a motorcycle without a helmet is lunacy IMO but i have no problem with the live free and die approach.

[Chris]

personal responsibility enforced by the government...?

Why would you come up with an oxymoron like that, junie? Fairly typical of progressives though.

[Mister D]

personal responsibility enforced by the government...?

The alternative would be not encouraging the lower classes to reproduce as they please.

[junie]

Why would you come up with an oxymoron like that, junie? Fairly typical of progressives though.



is it progressives who seek to intrude in reproductive privacy or is it the GOP base masquerading as 'conservative'...?


BTW 'unfairly' yet typical for you to lie about my political views, but everyone knows you are so lost without your handy labels.

do anarchists ever offer solutions beyond platitudes and put-downs...??

[Chris]

is it progressives who seek to intrude in reproductive privacy or is it the GOP base masquerading as 'conservative'...?


BTW 'unfairly' yet typical for you to lie about my political views, but everyone knows you are so lost without your handy labels.

do anarchists ever offer solutions beyond platitudes and put-downs...??




is it progressives who seek to intrude in reproductive privacy or is it the GOP base masquerading as 'conservative'...?

It is both, junie. Some reps ask government to intrude for the sake of the baby and some dems ask government to intrude for the sake of the mother. --And some of us, libertarians, and anarchists, especially, don't want government intruding at all.



No one lied, junie, you're a progressive. No one offered platitudes, no one put you down. Are those the ways you avoid discussing issues, junie?

[Bob]

An excellent assessment Bob. Now it needs someone to explain each point though, not from a uniquely American perspective, but as it applies to the western world.

That is a great idea. Since you are not in the USA, would you be interested?

While I too am not happy with the republicans, moving to Democrats is far worse. Witness what Obama has done to this country and his party.

[junie]

It is both, junie. Some reps ask government to intrude for the sake of the baby and some dems ask government to intrude for the sake of the mother. --And some of us, libertarians, and anarchists, especially, don't want government intruding at all.



No one lied, junie, you're a progressive. No one offered platitudes, no one put you down. Are those the ways you avoid discussing issues, junie?



riiiight. surely you can link to just one post which demonstrates my supposed progressiveness.

[Bob]

Well, it proves my points about conservatism.

A reactionary ideology that defends the tradition, religious, antidemocratic (and the lie that countries are becoming more democratic is so laughable, because all countries have light representative democracies, that is pretty authoritarian systems). Freedom? LOL defending faith, family (obviously traditional family) goes against any idea of freedom.

About the nonsense of Islam. Do you not notice that Christianism as it is portrayed by Conservative is exactly the same as Islam? Islam is a religion as Christianism.

In conclusion, conservatism is exactly what I say about them, a bunch of fascists. Literally, I don't see difference. Nationalists (patriotism or nationalism are exactly the same shit), traditionalists, ultrareligious, pro-authoritarian systems.

Seldom does one find so much hate over a person'a opinion than the above.

[Bob]

I've been reading Don Feder since the daze he had articles in the 'Conservative Chronicle'. I had also read the
only Conservative newspaper up in Boston...the 'Boston Herald' in which Feder had a daily column.

His points about Conservatism and of liberalism for that matter were right on point.

I especially liked the point in #6 where he said "Libertarians understand the human drive for freedom, but
miss the corresponding drives for security and order." Oh how I've been exposing that fact about libertarians
Rand and Ron Paul here at this forum for a long time now.


Don also mentioned how interventionism is needed at times by providing us with a few examples from
our American history.


Excellent piece as it not only details the Conservative love for freedom, but exposes the Alinsky leftists
as those who work hard at dismantling those freedoms we fought so hard to secure.

I self label myself as libertarian because of things Don may not understand. Freedom is huge. Very huge. Democrats have long tried to remove freedom. When they tell you that they want you free, don't listen to words, look at actions. Do they believe you are too wealthy? Though they claim to, they also are the richest in congress and note how many of them are very rich. Are they talking out their asses?

A true libertarian is in my opinion the reflection of the founders. I could no longer stand voting for democrats, back by 1980, so I vote for republicans. Sure, Libertarians also have people to vote for. But you might as well vote for a dog or cat as to vote for any of them. Some say vote the small party..

Sure, if your motive is to be on the losing end of elections.

So, I hold my nose and vote for republicans in the hope I might help to reform them. Ron Paul drifted back and forth from Libertarian to republican and his thanks was he peaked at Senator.

I am not against republicans. i am against democrats.

We can fix the republicans.

Think of them as a ship. It has holes. But they can be repaired. We Libertarians don't have a boat bigger than a canoe. I wish we did. I really think they can solve almost all problems.

I believe we must have security as well as order. But order, not by the whip, but by the book.

This nation puts a lot of humans behind bars. If the laws were so wonderful, why is the prisons so full of inmates? Was it education? The erosion of morals by Democrats? They mock decent morals. But when you super tax people, that is pure theft. Republicans play the democrats game. And it gives them an earned bad reputation.

[texan]

My definition of Liberalism..................Everyone goes broke. followed by likely rioting in the streets.


Greece for example.

[Bob]

I agree with all that which is why I get pissed off when lumped in with conservatives. I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I'm not a conservative.

The term social liberal is a misnomer. If you honestly do stand for freedom, you are closer to Libertarian. Conservatives do not like the way the Feds or states either, mismanage government affairs. Handing the Feds money is like dumping trash into the garbage can to see it later vanish.

The Democrats brand of running the Feds stands for hell, it is not my money, so who cares how it gets spent.

We on the other side can't tolerate that. As to personal freedoms, look at all the laws you get from Democrats. They pass laws about laws. They show no common sense. Back when this country was founded, they too could have 2.65 million law books of US law. But they were smarter than that.

A law is nothing but a spider web. Weave it long enough and sturdy enough and you remove freedom from any nation.

I am not saying to end laws. But the laws must match our needs rather than the needs of Democrats.

[Chris]

riiiight. surely you can link to just one post which demonstrates my supposed progressiveness.

On the issue at hand, are you pro-life or pro-choice, junie? --We all know you're pro-choice, junie. We also know where you stand on any number of social issues. Progressive.

[junie]

"some of us, libertarians, and anarchists, especially, don't want government intruding at all."



is that what you've argued with me repeatedly that roe v wade was bad law decided by men in black robes whose argument rested on a privacy penumbra you are skeptical of to the extent you'd rather let states decide?

you've also posted various emotional appeals about fetuses while you act as if you are unaware of the current active political movement aiming to push the intrusion line, even to the point of giving legal personhood status at conception so as to provide constitutional rights to the unborn...




In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/robes_blackmun.html) (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws..



THAT is a conservative decision! ^

[junie]

On the issue at hand, are you pro-life or pro-choice, junie? --We all know you're pro-choice, junie. We also know where you stand on any number of social issues. Progressive.



no, your precious labels are failing you...

[Chris]

no, your precious labels are failing you...

Precious, that's a ravi label.


When did I come to own 'progressive'? Can I charge a fee to others for using it? I mean, given that it's "precious" to me.

[Bob]

It is both, junie. Some reps ask government to intrude for the sake of the baby and some dems ask government to intrude for the sake of the mother. --And some of us, libertarians, and anarchists, especially, don't want government intruding at all.


I stand on being Libertarian but we must not ever get the idea that children should not be protected.

Like it or not, there is crime. When the mother made decisions, some simply must run the course.

To protect the child in her womb, though it ought to be her doing it and not me, can't simply be ignored.

It is not her body. Her body only changed a bit due to nature taking a course called having a baby.

They don't, as some also state, have a monkey in them, nor a crescent wrench nor a watermelon. They all know what is in them. They call it gladly a baby when they want it. It is only when to them it is trash, they decide it is a fetus. Most of them have no clue what a fetus is. They panic and tell a friend they will have a baby. Then somebody points out abortions. To get rid of the baby, you have an abortion.

You do not cut off or cut out the legs or fingers or livers. That is the woman's body.

No, they attack the innocent. They go after the child. Being born is a stage in the chain of events. No baby would be safe were it right to abort.

A man could kill a woman's child in the womb with heavy blows and maybe draw a small fine for hurting her body. But Democrats don't understand babies. We have a lot of women who engage in child abuse and men too. So what makes them abusive?

We start them thinking they are not dealing with a human. Some of them think one has to be an adult to be human. They may not admit it, but the government won't let them drink until age 21 or vote until 18. Were they real humans, the Feds would not block them.

[junie]

come on chris, i'm waiting...

show me which of my posts you use to justify your dishonesty in labeling me a 'typical progressive'.

[Chris]

"some of us, libertarians, and anarchists, especially, don't want government intruding at all."



is that what you've argued with me repeatedly that roe v wade was bad law decided by men in black robes whose argument rested on a privacy penumbra you are skeptical of to the extent you'd rather let states decide?

you've also posted various emotional appeals about fetuses while you act as if you are unaware of the current active political movement aiming to push the intrusion line, even to the point of giving legal personhood status at conception so as to provide constitutional rights to the unborn...




In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/robes_blackmun.html) (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws..



THAT is a conservative decision! ^



Yes, Roe v Wade was a progressive government intrusion, junie.



to the extent you'd rather let states decide

No, you got me mixed up with someone else again.

If you remember, my argument is social issues should be decided by society, not government.



you've also posted various emotional appeals about fetuses

Again, you've got me mixed up with someone else, junie.

If you remember, my argument is based on medical science.



as if you are unaware of the current active political movement aiming to give legal personhood status at conception so as to provide constitutional rights to the unborn

Again, you have me mixed up with someone else, junie.

If you remember, I have repeatedly exposed the progressive personhood argument as associated with the earlier euthanasia movement in American that the Nazis borrowed in the efforts to exterminate the Jews.




THAT is a conservative decision!

It's a progressive decision.

[Bob]

"some of us, libertarians, and anarchists, especially, don't want government intruding at all."



is that what you've argued with me repeatedly that roe v wade was bad law decided by men in black robes whose argument rested on a privacy penumbra you are skeptical of to the extent you'd rather let states decide?

you've also posted various emotional appeals about fetuses while you act as if you are unaware of the current active political movement aiming to push the intrusion line, even to the point of giving legal personhood status at conception so as to provide constitutional rights to the unborn...




In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/robes_blackmun.html) (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws..



THAT is a conservative decision! ^


I had not suspected you were anti child.

I personally believe the explanation by Justice Rhenquist is the best of all on Roe V Wade.

[Chris]

come on chris, i'm waiting...

show me which of my posts you use to justify your dishonesty in labeling me a 'typical progressive'.


Are you pro-life suddenly, junie?

[texan]

If you are a progressive then you are typical.

[nathanbforrest45]

Junie won't answer. Progressives never want to admit they are embracing death and destruction as their main core values.

[Bob]

personal responsibility enforced by the government...?

The laws designed to protect children can't be one thing to a woman who wants her baby but different if she does not want the baby.

Same as the same red light at the corner works for you and me alike.

Women should not be pregnant unless they want to be. And once pregnant, just like I would do to help a woman being attacked by a man trying to beat her to get rid of her baby, where I would use law or fists to help her, I help the baby most of all. She is not the innocent in all cases. But when she selects a death sentence for her own child, somebody even those of us hating it, must help save that child.

She took actions to get pregnant so she can't demand I or a neighbor care for her child. She knew for many years how to not get pregnant. And she should have told the man. (I am saying here that women are not fertile all days of a month and she knows far more about her pregnancy cycle than we know)

[junie]

Precious, that's a ravi label.


When did I come to own 'progressive'? Can I charge a fee to others for using it? I mean, given that it's "precious" to me.


you cling to labels to put-down and dismiss others with no regard for truth. there's a word for that.

as to your denial of your own words, my post is practically verbatim of what many of us have seen you post.

the only thing off was 'let states decide' instead of your slippery 'let society decide' which to me is your typical circle jerk answer.

IMO pro choice is THE proper conservative position and IMO civil equality for gays is THE proper conservative position.

[Mister D]

y

IMO pro choice is THE proper conservative position and IMO civil equality for gays is THE proper conservative position.

Why?

[junie]

6679

[Chris]

you cling to labels to put-down and dismiss others with no regard for truth. there's a word for that.

as to your denial of your own words, my post is practically verbatim of what many of us have seen you post.

the only thing off was 'let states decide' instead of your slippery 'let society decide' which to me is your typical circle jerk answer.

IMO pro choice is THE proper conservative position and IMO civil equality for gays is THE proper conservative position.


Labels are used to communicate with, junie. Odd, you're the one dismissing them but accusing me of doing that. More odd, you use 'conservative' as a label. You seem confused.

I see you now need to deny what I argue to make yourself right. And then you blubber out:


the only thing off was 'let states decide' instead of your slippery 'let society decide' which to me is your typical circle jerk answer.

Makes no sense, junie.


IMO pro choice is THE proper conservative position and IMO civil equality for gays is THE proper conservative position.

So you think conservatives should adopt your progressive stance.

[Chris]

Why?

I guess your answer was a meme about the Rep Party.

[Mister D]

junie Seriously, why?

FYI, I'm not a libertarian, a conservative (in the American sense), or a Republican.

[Bob]

The confusion is there's two kinds of conservatism, even from the emergence of the new conservatives in the 50s, that between more traditional conservatives who we might represent by Kirk, and the more libertarian leaning ones who we might represent by Buckley. There were attempts by Buckley and Frank Meyer, but rejected by Kirk and others. It was the libertarian side that gave us Goldwater, and that lead to a semi-fusion under Reagan. Republicans tend to embrace both factions early in each election cycle, but reject the libertarian faction in the end, like they did Ron Paul. Rand might change that.

The OP is standard Kirkian conservatism.

Rather than a straight line, defined as two points connected, why not embrace something more akin to a circle?

Why this stubborn clinging to a narrow view of conservative?

Personally, I have evolved. A lot. From far left to what I view as center yet am called far right by the left.

To the truly right, i might not come off as right at all.

Libertarians such as myself are not rejected for no good cause. Democrats have so much cash they dominate the media and at least hold their on with ads designed to get out the vote.

We Libertarians can't match either party. Some of us don't want to lose to Democrats, so we vote for republicans. Does this mean republicans are awesome? Hell no. But to cast my vote for the party of losers won't help either. It does what Ross Perot did when he ran against Bush and Clinton. A democrat wins.

That my friend is far worse than the worst republican.

Look at the national debt just for fodder for thinking. This matters to all of us.

[Bob]

Try this out to see where you actually stand.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

[Mister D]

Try this out to see where you actually stand.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

We all took that. It's on a thread somewhere. Also, I know where I stand.

[Bob]

IMO pro choice is THE proper conservative position and IMO civil equality for gays is THE proper conservative position.

Pro choice means we must endure you killing off babies at will. If you were walking inside a store and some guy came to beat that baby out of you, is it our right to stop him?

It is my right to try to cause you to keep a baby you created. Nobody forces you to create babies. If they do, put them in jail.

As to your body, do as you wish with it. Just keep babies out of your problems.

As far as homosexuals go, your logic leads you to accept fully adults in incest marriages. I don't mean children, but adults. And families composed of one or more women and perhaps even several men, all sharing the women. If you think you can't stand that, imagine what most in this country think about your idea to tell homosexuals when they join, it is marriage.

Marriage has a very legal meaning.

We in CA solved that problem by civil unions that homosexuals used. It resolved their issues. Then we put it in our constitution and they hated it and took us to court. And they won. But who stands up for those who have alleged marriages such as I laid out?

At one point, the Feds role in marriage was nothing. And it was not that long ago they stayed out. It was due to income taxes they decided to mention it in law.

I hope when homosexuals combine their incomes, they pay so much more in income taxes they regret for a life time they got what they wanted.

[Bob]

We all took that. It's on a thread somewhere. Also, I know where I stand.

Where do you stand?

[Chris]

The confusion is there's two kinds of conservatism, even from the emergence of the new conservatives in the 50s, that between more traditional conservatives who we might represent by Kirk, and the more libertarian leaning ones who we might represent by Buckley. There were attempts by Buckley and Frank Meyer, but rejected by Kirk and others. It was the libertarian side that gave us Goldwater, and that lead to a semi-fusion under Reagan. Republicans tend to embrace both factions early in each election cycle, but reject the libertarian faction in the end, like they did Ron Paul. Rand might change that.

The OP is standard Kirkian conservatism.


Rather than a straight line, defined as two points connected, why not embrace something more akin to a circle?

Why this stubborn clinging to a narrow view of conservative?

Personally, I have evolved. A lot. From far left to what I view as center yet am called far right by the left.

To the truly right, i might not come off as right at all.

Libertarians such as myself are not rejected for no good cause. Democrats have so much cash they dominate the media and at least hold their on with ads designed to get out the vote.

We Libertarians can't match either party. Some of us don't want to lose to Democrats, so we vote for republicans. Does this mean republicans are awesome? Hell no. But to cast my vote for the party of losers won't help either. It does what Ross Perot did when he ran against Bush and Clinton. A democrat wins.

That my friend is far worse than the worst republican.

Look at the national debt just for fodder for thinking. This matters to all of us.


Actually what I described was a rather broad historical view of conservatism.

I'm libertarian myself, though anarchist, anarchocapitalist. Which is why I argue government should not be involved in social issues like abortion, despite junie's denial I do.

I suppose we could draw a circle around the Nolan chart.

[Chris]

Try this out to see where you actually stand.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/


We all took that. It's on a thread somewhere. Also, I know where I stand.



See http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/5279-Hey-guys-Political-Crowd-Chart?p=246946&viewfull=1#post246946

http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/crowdgraphpng.php?Cpt__Obvious=-3.4%2C-3.6&Peter=2.0%2C-3.4&Polly=-10.0%2C-6.3&F%26l=1.0%2C-2.0&Chris=7.0%2C-4.0&Awryly=-6.0%2C-3.5&Adelaide=-9.0%2C-7.2&Mister_D=-2.2%2C1.2&Kizzume=-6.3%2C-5.2&K_Code=-0.1%2C-5.1&Chloe=-9.1%2C-3.7&Dr__Who=-6.1%2C-3.0&Guerilla=-3.0%2C-3.9&Cigar=-3.6%2C-2.0&Pete7469=5.5%2C-1.6&Agravan=1.7%2C0.9&Oceanlover=-2.1%2C0.3&mainecoons=3.6%2C-2.1%3Cdiv%20style=


What I'd love to see is some of the people here who refuse to take the quiz....

[Mainecoons]

I agree with all that which is why I get pissed off when lumped in with conservatives. I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I'm not a conservative.

I guess you've described me too. I'm a libertarian. I don't want government in my bedroom or in my pocket. We really could shrink government by 40 percent AT ALL LEVELS and improve the quality of life and prosperity in America.

[GrassrootsConservative]

I took a quiz like that. Why aren't my results on there?

[Chris]

I took a quiz like that. Why aren't my results on there?


'cause you're way out there, man! :-D


KC is the one who maintains it, let him know your results and he can update.

[1751_Texan]

I see the op skipped that little party in Indochina...maybe a tour overseas would have shaped the views in a different direction.

[GrassrootsConservative]

'cause you're way out there, man! :-D


@KC (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=423) is the one who maintains it, let him know your results and he can update.

No, I mean this was a long time ago.

You had my results at one point:

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/13305-Your-Political-Worldview?p=312159&viewfull=1#post312159

Granted, I think that version is a little skew... :laugh:

[KC]

I took a quiz like that. Why aren't my results on there?

No offense man, but I removed your results a while back after a long period of inactivity. I'd be happy to add your results again though since you've been back a while.

[Chris]

No, I mean this was a long time ago.

You had my results at one point:

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/13305-Your-Political-Worldview?p=312159&viewfull=1#post312159

Granted, I think that version is a little skew... :laugh:


I thought we had more. The skewing was me trying to spread the results since most are in the bottom half.


@KC??? nvrmnd, saw your explanation above.

[GrassrootsConservative]

So someone DID notice! :)

[Bob]

It seems to me that libertarian centers on the "Outback Philosophy of Life" "No rules, just right" That quite simply will not work in the long run. Even Ayn Rand, certainly not in favor of any religious beliefs, states any system must be deeply rooted in a firm moral and philosophical basis. Without that bedrock your "no rules, just right" becomes another cliche "The person who stands for nothing will fall for anything"

Understanding anarchy and Libertarians really ranks as super hard for most posters.

They get this wild idea that people will just do all kinds of bad things.

First, each of us owe yourself and your family the right of self defense and self protection.

Those who take matters into their own hands and build shelters stocked with plenty of food and water, get it.

They assume responsibility for their lives and the family lives.

Ask this of government. If you are facing a person well armed who is aiming at you, can cops arrive faster than a bullet can travel maybe 10 to 15 feet?

If you can't defend your own life, how can you expect cops to arrive fast enough to do your job?

[Mainecoons]

Libertarians agree that a solid moral foundation is vital. We just understand that you can't legislate it. If a people chose to embrace immorality and dissolution, they are probably also embracing progressivism at the same time. We wish that they didn't do this but you can't force morality.

There is no question in my mind that the political decay we are witnessing has its roots in the moral decay of the people. It is the great cycle of history and you can't stop it.

[Chris]

^^That is something a progressive like junie cannot seem to understand. To her, because I am pro-life, I must want government to enforce it. Wrong.

[Mainecoons]

^^^^^^^^
Exactly. I am pro life as well. And anti-drug. How is that enforcement working for ya, eh?

[midcan5]

"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?"" Abraham Lincoln Source: February 27, 1860 Cooper Union


What is a Conservative in America? I offer this quick definition, a conservative is a person or group of people who blame everything they disagree with or consider wrong with the world, on democrats, on liberals, on progressives, on unions, on the so called liberal MSM, on government and on government regulations. The author of the OP defends a conservatism that doesn't even exist. Conservatism today in America is merely the voice of the corporation and of the wealthy. They are managed by think tanks and right wing radio, the so called think tanks are corporate supported and they sing the corporate tune. If you doubt that consider the theater that is conservatism, they all parrot the same lines, over and over again. There is nothing to them but words, I hear nothing of work, morality, justice for all Americans, instead you hear a constant cry of victimization, of loss, of if only... I have never heard them do something real for all people as most are among the entitled class in America and assume all others must be at fault if they do not have the same opportunity. Conservatives lack empathy, they even lack Christian values although they constantly use religion as a stick and not a tool. When every single conservative parrots the same talking points, the same anguished if only, you know you are in America today and you knows who is paying the piper.




"Moreover, if we give the matter a moment's thought, we can see that the 20th century morality tale of 'socialism vs. freedom' or 'communism vs. capitalism' is misleading. Capitalism is not a political system; it is a form of economic life, compatible in practice with right wing dictatorships (Chile under Pinochet), left-wing dictatorships (contemporary China), social-democratic monarchies (Sweden), and plutocratic republics (the United States), whether capitalist economies thrive best under conditions of freedom is perhaps more of an open question than we like to think." Tony Judt 'Ill fares the Land'


"The collapse of the Bush presidency, in other words, is not just due to Bush's incompetence (although his administration has been incompetent beyond belief). Nor is it a response to the president's principled lack of intellectual curiosity and pitbull refusal to admit mistakes (although those character flaws are certainly real enough). And the orgy of bribery and special-interest dispensation in Congress is not the result of Tom DeLay's ruthlessness, as impressive a bully as he was. This conservative presidency and Congress imploded, not despite their conservatism, but because of it." "Why Conservatives Can't Govern" by Alan Wolfe (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0607.wolfe.html)


"Conservatism is the theoretical voice of this animus against the agency of the subordinate classes. It provides the most consistent and profound argument as to why the lower orders should not be allowed to exercise their independent will, why they should not be allowed to govern themselves or the polity. Submission is their first duty, agency, the prerogative of the elite." Corey Robin 'The Reactionary Mind'

Here are a few of their theater writers:

Senate Conservatives Fund - http://www.senateconservatives.com/
The Madison Project - http://madisonproject.com/
FreedomWorks - http://www.freedomworks.org/
Club for Growth - http://www.clubforgrowth.org/

[Chris]

^^^^^^^^
Exactly. I am pro life as well. And anti-drug. How is that enforcement working for ya, eh?

Putting a lot of people in jail don't need to be.

[junie]

^^That is something a progressive like junie cannot seem to understand. To her, because I am pro-life, I must want government to enforce it. Wrong.


you are making the same arguments others use toward the rationale of extreme government enforcement...

you want anarchist ''let society decide'' whatever that means, rather than rule of constitutional law.

[Chris]

"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?"" Abraham Lincoln Source: February 27, 1860 Cooper Union


What is a Conservative in America? I offer this quick definition, a conservative is a person or group of people who blame everything they disagree with or consider wrong with the world, on democrats, on liberals, on progressives, on unions, on the so called liberal MSM, on government and on government regulations. The author of the OP defends a conservatism that doesn't even exist. Conservatism today in America is merely the voice of the corporation and of the wealthy. They are managed by think tanks and right wing radio, the so called think tanks are corporate supported and they sing the corporate tune. If you doubt that consider the theater that is conservatism, they all parrot the same lines, over and over again. There is nothing to them but words, I hear nothing of work, morality, justice for all Americans, instead you hear a constant cry of victimization, of loss, of if only... I have never heard them do something real for all people as most are among the entitled class in America and assume all others must be at fault if they do not have the same opportunity. Conservatives lack empathy, they even lack Christian values although they constantly use religion as a stick and not a tool. When every single conservative parrots the same talking points, the same anguished if only, you know you are in America today and you knows who is paying the piper.




"Moreover, if we give the matter a moment's thought, we can see that the 20th century morality tale of 'socialism vs. freedom' or 'communism vs. capitalism' is misleading. Capitalism is not a political system; it is a form of economic life, compatible in practice with right wing dictatorships (Chile under Pinochet), left-wing dictatorships (contemporary China), social-democratic monarchies (Sweden), and plutocratic republics (the United States), whether capitalist economies thrive best under conditions of freedom is perhaps more of an open question than we like to think." Tony Judt 'Ill fares the Land'


"The collapse of the Bush presidency, in other words, is not just due to Bush's incompetence (although his administration has been incompetent beyond belief). Nor is it a response to the president's principled lack of intellectual curiosity and pitbull refusal to admit mistakes (although those character flaws are certainly real enough). And the orgy of bribery and special-interest dispensation in Congress is not the result of Tom DeLay's ruthlessness, as impressive a bully as he was. This conservative presidency and Congress imploded, not despite their conservatism, but because of it." "Why Conservatives Can't Govern" by Alan Wolfe (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0607.wolfe.html)


"Conservatism is the theoretical voice of this animus against the agency of the subordinate classes. It provides the most consistent and profound argument as to why the lower orders should not be allowed to exercise their independent will, why they should not be allowed to govern themselves or the polity. Submission is their first duty, agency, the prerogative of the elite." Corey Robin 'The Reactionary Mind'



I stopped at Lincoln.

[GrassrootsConservative]

you are making the same arguments others use toward the rationale of extreme government enforcement...

you want anarchist ''let society decide'' whatever that means, rather than rule of constitutional law.

What part of "Right to Life" don't you understand?

[Chris]

you are making the same arguments others use toward the rationale of extreme government enforcement...

you want anarchist ''let society decide'' whatever that means, rather than rule of constitutional law.



Huh? How can argument against government force be argument for it? You're not making a lick of sense.



you want anarchist ''let society decide'' whatever that means, rather than rule of constitutional law.

If you don't know what something means how can you argue against it? Why not ask, why not engage in discussion to find out? I'd be glad to explain.

[Mainecoons]

Junie, this is where I have an advantage over you. I actually lived when government was a great deal smaller and less intrusive. I witnessed first hand that this really works best overall. Yes, there were a few problems but the government "solution" in all cases has been over-reaction and creation of bigger problems.

Trust me on this--we really don't need this army of overpaid, under talented bureaucrats micromanaging us at every turn. The people possess a lot of common sense which does a pretty good job when allowed to do so.

I've seen it done my way and now done your way. Your way doesn't work so hot. Sorry.

[junie]

Junie, this is where I have an advantage over you. I actually lived when government was a great deal smaller and less intrusive. I witnessed first hand that this really works best overall. Yes, there were a few problems but the government "solution" in all cases has been over-reaction and creation of bigger problems.

Trust me on this--we really don't need this army of overpaid, under talented bureaucrats micromanaging us at every turn. The people possess a lot of common sense which does a pretty good job when allowed to do so.

I've seen it done my way and now done your way. Your way doesn't work so hot. Sorry.


why are you going on about micromanaging? :laugh:



i just posted my views on two issues i care about which in my view are conservative.

i identify as a conservative who finds ''pro-life'' and ''anti big government" a serious contradiction.

previous to roe v wade the state of texas was out of bounds...aka 'overly intrusive government solution'.

[junie]

poor chris always needs to feign a lack of understanding things... makes him feel smart i guess. :dontknow:

[GrassrootsConservative]

Quit attacking people and answer the questions.

By the way, your signature is annoying.

/Edit: And quite obsessive.

I'm sure Paperback Writer appreciates you renting him permanent space in all of your posts.

[junie]

aww am i buggin' ya? :smiley:

[GrassrootsConservative]

aww am i buggin' ya? :smiley:

I'll answer that question if you answer mine.

What part of "Right to Life" don't you understand?

[junie]

I'll answer that question if you answer mine.

What part of "Right to Life" don't you understand?





there is no part of the issue i don't understand. you?

[GrassrootsConservative]

there is no part of the issue i don't understand. you?

Well you were just arguing against being "pro-life," taking a pro-death stance in a discussion about abortion.

Seems to me that would violate one's right to life.

/Edit: Almost forgot, no you are not bugging me. Not sure why you asked.

[Chris]

poor chris always needs to feign a lack of understanding things... makes him feel smart i guess. :dontknow:

Hell, junie, when you say you don't understand, I offer to help explain, I say I don't understand and all you can do is make up something to mock.



i identify as a conservative who finds ''pro-life'' and ''anti big government" a serious contradiction.

Progressive stance. You are what you say not what you say you are.

[Chris]

there is no part of the issue i don't understand. you?



Then explain what the right to life positions are, junie. You seem to understand only the religious right reaction to the progressive personhood argument. Yet you seem to have absolutely no understanding of the libertarian right to life argument maine, codename, I and others put forth. So there are parts you fail to understand at all.

[GrassrootsConservative]

The saddest part is, sometimes even when you break it down and explain it... they still don't understand.

[Chris]

Well you were just arguing against being "pro-life," taking a pro-death stance in a discussion about abortion.

Seems to me that would violate one's right to life.

/Edit: Almost forgot, no you are not bugging me. Not sure why you asked.



Actually it is her contention that right to life contradicts conservatism.

Would love to hear an explanation for that whopper.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Then explain what the right to life positions are, junie. You seem to understand only the religious right reaction to the progressive personhood argument. Yet you seem to have absolutely no understanding of the libertarian right to life argument maine, codename, I and others put forth. So there are parts you fail to understand at all.

They're not even Libertarian, they're Conservative. "Right to Life" is one of the main things we want to conserve about this great country. I don't know why anyone would want to get rid of it by aborting innocent fetuses, but they're free to have their fucked-up views and speak about them. I may not agree, but she can speak on it all she wants, that's her right. I find it atrocious.

But, yes, some on the right may have their motives wrong when they give a religious argument for it, but isn't it the view as a whole that really counts?

[Chris]

The saddest part is, sometimes even when you break it down and explain it... they still don't understand.


I've been arguing I'm pro-life but against government enforcement since I've known her and she keeps telling me I want enforcement. While letting society decide seemed to break through to her, it was, by her admission, something she couldn't understand.

Sometimes it seems to be willful ignorance, that she really just doesn't want to understand.

[Chris]

They're not even Libertarian, they're Conservative. "Right to Life" is one of the main things we want to conserve about this great country. I don't know why anyone would want to get rid of it by aborting innocent fetuses, but they're free to have their fucked-up views and speak about them. I may not agree, but she can speak on it all she wants, that's her right. I find it atrocious.

But, yes, some on the right may have their motives wrong when they give a religious argument for it, but isn't it the view as a whole that really counts?


Yes, right to life is conservative. What I mean when I say libertarian right to life is advocating for right to life but not advocating government intervention into the issue one way or the other.

Mind you I think the standard libertarian argument is pro-choice based on a private property/privacy argument. It is ironic to me when people like jilian, ravi and (I believe) junie use that argument, not realizing it, and not understanding its full ramifications.

[Chris]

junie, thanks for taking political compass quiz @ http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/5279-Hey-guys-Political-Crowd-Chart?p=570658&viewfull=1#post570658. Bet you were surprised you landed on the progressive side. But, hey, you're in good company.

[junie]

no that's the result of a test i took years ago. i know where i stand.

[Chris]

no that's the result of a test i took years ago. i know where i stand.

I'm sure you do, you just need to get your labels to where most others use them.

[junie]

no i do not. :grin:


http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/211548/83444797.png

[Chris]

no i do not. :grin:...

No you do not know where you stand? OK.

[junie]

can you tell me what's not "conservative" about keeping the government out of our private choices?


"What a conservative actually is"

[junie]

surely most of us realize the obvious limitations of labeling devices such as this political compass...

[Chris]

can you tell me what's not "conservative" about keeping the government out of our private choices?


"What a conservative actually is"


Because modern conservatism, much like modern liberalism/progressivism, is all about keeping government in our lives and private choices. The modern conservative wants government to promote if not provide pro-life values whereas the modern liberal/progressive wants government to promote if not provide pro-choice values. You, junie, very much applaud and adhere to the court's activist, intrusive Roe v Wade finding. You frame that as being pro-constitutional (though it has nothing to do with the Constitution itself), but I'd bet were the court to reverse that you would decry it instead.

So where do you stand with regard to say Hobby Lobby or the wedding cake makers? Are you consistently pro-choice on those and other social issues? Are you consistently for keeping government out of private choices?

[Chris]

surely most of us realize the obvious limitations of labeling devices such as this political compass...

Of course. It's just for fun.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Because modern conservatism, much like modern liberalism/progressivism, is all about keeping government in our lives and private choices

That's not true at all. Modern Republicans, stricken with the progressive plague, are that way, but modern Conservatives are not that way at all. We're still for small government.

[Spectre]

Because modern conservatism, much like modern liberalism/progressivism, is all about keeping government in our lives and private choices. The modern conservative wants government to promote if not provide pro-life values whereas the modern liberal/progressive wants government to promote if not provide pro-choice values. You, junie, very much applaud and adhere to the court's activist, intrusive Roe v Wade finding. You frame that as being pro-constitutional (though it has nothing to do with the Constitution itself), but I'd bet were the court to reverse that you would decry it instead.

So where do you stand with regard to say Hobby Lobby or the wedding cake makers? Are you consistently pro-choice on those and other social issues? Are you consistently for keeping government out of private choices?

One of the FEW things a civilized government must do is guard innocent lives and punish those who would do them harm. Nothing is more innocent and vulnerable than an unborn life. So ANY government with a claim to civilized values must protect them.

And NO, I'm NOT a Christian! Jeez!

[junie]

Because modern conservatism, much like modern liberalism/progressivism, is all about keeping government in our lives and private choices. The modern conservative wants government to promote if not provide pro-life values whereas the modern liberal/progressive wants government to promote if not provide pro-choice values.

You, junie, very much applaud and adhere to the court's activist, intrusive Roe v Wade finding.

You frame that as being pro-constitutional (though it has nothing to do with the Constitution itself), but I'd bet were the court to reverse that you would decry it instead.

So where do you stand with regard to say Hobby Lobby or the wedding cake makers? Are you consistently pro-choice on those and other social issues? Are you consistently for keeping government out of private choices?


that's not a MODERN conservative it's an evangelical religious fundamentalist taliban-esque conservative...

[Chris]

that's not a MODERN conservative it's an evangelical religious fundamentalist taliban-esque conservative...

Modern conservatism is generally religious in nature, junie. I recall many many years ago The American Conservative had an issue in which it asked well-known conservatives to define what they meant by conservatism. Heather MacDonald wrote up a piece explaining her position on the secular right. Years later some were still fuming over it. It's just the nature of modern American conservatism. --BTW, MacDonald's piece was all about how she shared all the same values as her religious compatriots, just was a nonbeliever.

Why you want to throw in inflammatory remarks about it is beyond me, it serves no purpose, other than to expose your progressive roots again.


Earlier I asked you to explain why you thought your position was conservative. I've addressed your questions. How about reciprocating?

[Chris]

One of the FEW things a civilized government must do is guard innocent lives and punish those who would do them harm. Nothing is more innocent and vulnerable than an unborn life. So ANY government with a claim to civilized values must protect them.

And NO, I'm NOT a Christian! Jeez!


If that were what government actually did, protect rights and punish harm, I might believe in the theory. It certainly ought to.

[Chris]

That's not true at all. Modern Republicans, stricken with the progressive plague, are that way, but modern Conservatives are not that way at all. We're still for small government.


True, we do need to keep unpartied principles separate from unprincipled parties.

But still, I think the standard conservative position is Christian at least in values. Back in the 50s as the new conservatism emerged, its leaders like Kirk and Buckley both shared Christian values, but where Kirk believed it was government's position to promote, even provide for those, Buckley was for limited government and believed you lead instead by example.

[Captain Obvious]

True, we do need to keep unpartied principles separate from unprincipled parties.

But still, I think the standard conservative position is Christian at least in values. Back in the 50s as the new conservatism emerged, its leaders like Kirk and Buckley both shared Christian values, but where Kirk believed it was government's position to promote, even provide for those, Buckley was for limited government and believed you lead instead by example.

Having said that, I find it kind of ironic and maybe a testament to the inaccuracy of the process but you're the most "conservative" member of the forum who took the political chart test and I believe you're an atheist.

[junie]

I've been arguing I'm pro-life but against government enforcement since I've known her and she keeps telling me I want enforcement. While letting society decide seemed to break through to her, it was, by her admission, something she couldn't understand.

Sometimes it seems to be willful ignorance, that she really just doesn't want to understand.


that's not what i said.



you are making the same arguments others use toward the rationale of extreme government enforcement...

you want anarchist ''let society decide'' whatever that means, rather than rule of constitutional law.

[nathanbforrest45]

no i mean like reproductive freedom in direct response to the claim of its supposed LUNACY.


i understand the arguments on those other issues but they don't bother me as much.

driving a motorcycle without a helmet is lunacy IMO but i have no problem with the live free and die approach.

.,That is not the issue when it comes to abortion. No one is saying that you can't choose to live or die, kill yourself if you want. However, an abortion does not stop your life. It stops the potential life of another human being who has absolutely no choice in the procedure. To claim someone's objection to abortion is trying to control your choices IS lunacy but I understand why you make that argument. If you ever admitted to yourself that what you are advocating is the wanton murder of another human I doubt that you could live with yourself.

You can claim all you want its about your right to control your body and I have no say in your body but you would still be missing the true argument. You are killing another innocent human. I don't condemn you for that. God will however.

[Chris]

that's not what i said.

So now you accept I don't want government involved?

[Chris]

Having said that, I find it kind of ironic and maybe a testament to the inaccuracy of the process but you're the most "conservative" member of the forum who took the political chart test and I believe you're an atheist.

Probably because I share most of the same conservative values you, as a progressive, as the self same quiz attests, despise.

I am just the same on the Libertarian side of the Y axis.

[ChoppedLiver]

I agree with all that which is why I get pissed off when lumped in with conservatives. I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I'm not a conservative.

Usually when I hear people say that, they are just liberals who don't want to pay their taxes.

:cool:

[Peter1469]

Usually when I hear people say that, they are just liberals who don't want to pay their taxes.

:cool:


Not many liberals out there into small government (the fiscal conservative part).

[Peter1469]

I still agree with the American concept of federalism. The federal government had only the powers that the states gave to it, so much of the stuff the federal government does is without authority. That solves these problems at the federal level. The states however do have authority to legislate across the board. It is up to us to get the right people into state office so the state government retrains itself.

[Captain Obvious]

Probably because I share most of the same conservative values you, as a progressive, as the self same quiz attests, despise.

I am just the same on the Libertarian side of the Y axis.

So tell me, what conservative values do I despise?

Since you defining them for me.

[Chris]

So tell me, what conservative values do I despise?

Since you defining them for me.

I don't define them for you, captain, you do that yourself.

Of course you could reject the quiz results but that would likewise reject your criticism of me as conservative.

[Captain Obvious]

I don't define them for you, captain, you do that yourself.

Sure you do - or you try to, that's the point.

Answer the question - you said I despise certain conservative values. I'm asking you to elaborate, you made the statement, back it up. Unless you're backing down.


Of course you could reject the quiz results but that would likewise reject your criticism of me as conservative.

Communicating with you is near impossible. You have a very mechanical thought process and you often either make stuff up (or it seems like you're making stuff up) or you misinterpret, especially if the concept colors beyond your defined lines. You really struggle with simple abstract thinking.

Having said all of that, I was closer to paying you a compliment with my comment. I don't know what you took away from it that got sand in your vag, but you clearly misunderstood.

So... since simple English doesn't work on you, what do you recommend?

[Chris]

Sure you do - or you try to, that's the point.

Answer the question - you said I despise certain conservative values. I'm asking you to elaborate, you made the statement, back it up. Unless you're backing down.



Communicating with you is near impossible. You have a very mechanical thought process and you often either make stuff up (or it seems like you're making stuff up) or you misinterpret, especially if the concept colors beyond your defined lines. You really struggle with simple abstract thinking.

Having said all of that, I was closer to paying you a compliment with my comment. I don't know what you took away from it that got sand in your vag, but you clearly misunderstood.

So... since simple English doesn't work on you, what do you recommend?



No, cap, just following and applying your logic to you. If according to your logic the quiz shows I'm a conservative then by that same logic it shows you a progressive. The rest follows from that.

Communication is difficult when you don't want to swallow your own logic. Then you huff and puff. You're right, everybody's wrong, and there's something wrong with them. Ring a bell?

As I responded last night to junie, the quiz is not serious but done in fun.

[Ravi]

No, cap, just following and applying your logic to you. If according to your logic the quiz shows I'm a conservative then by that same logic it shows you a progressive. The rest follows from that.

Communication is difficult when you don't want to swallow your own logic. Then you huff and puff. You're right, everybody's wrong, and there's something wrong with them. Ring a bell?

As I responded last night to junie, the quiz is not serious but done in fun.

There is no category "progressive" on the chart. There is conservative. So no, you are spouting nonsense.

[nic34]

I stopped at Lincoln.

So you don't read what you don't like either... pot meet kettle....

[Captain Obvious]

No, cap, just following and applying your logic to you. If according to your logic the quiz shows I'm a conservative then by that same logic it shows you a progressive. The rest follows from that.

Communication is difficult when you don't want to swallow your own logic. Then you huff and puff. You're right, everybody's wrong, and there's something wrong with them. Ring a bell?

As I responded last night to junie, the quiz is not serious but done in fun.

Donde esta casa de pe pe?

[Captain Obvious]

There is no category "progressive" on the chart. There is conservative. So no, you are spouting nonsense.

Chris is black and white, there is little sliding scale with him and that's what I think he and some others make the mistake of thinking this chart/process is absolute when it's not, let alone the accuracy of measurement.

[Mainecoons]

So you don't read what you don't like either... pot meet kettle....

He stopped at Lincoln because that was the first huge appropriation of power and Executive rewriting of the Constitution in history as Lincoln made up the prohibition against leaving the union and had it ratified after the fact by the Supreme Court.

Next time, don't sleep through history class, genius.

[Chris]

There is no category "progressive" on the chart. There is conservative. So no, you are spouting nonsense.


Liberal = progressive = left, ravi. Nice try though.

[Ravi]

Liberal = progressive = left, ravi. Nice try though.
Progressives can be either left or right, unless you want to define "conservative" as anal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

[Chris]

Chris is black and white, there is little sliding scale with him and that's what I think he and some others make the mistake of thinking this chart/process is absolute when it's not, let alone the accuracy of measurement.

Now like junie, cap, you're not making a lick of sense. If everything for me is black and white, either/or, absolutes, then how can my thinking also be on a sliding scale of degrees of this, that and the other thing (left v right, libertarian v authoritarian)? When you make up criticisms like that you slip into mistakes too easily.

[Captain Obvious]

Now like junie, cap, you're not making a lick of sense. If everything for me is black and white, either/or, absolutes, then how can my thinking also be on a sliding scale of degrees of this, that and the other thing (left v right, libertarian v authoritarian)? When you make up criticisms like that you slip into mistakes too easily.

You bicker worse than an old lady.

http://www.command-post.org/oped/2_archives/images/Bagley%20Bickering.jpg

[Chris]

Progressives can be either left or right, unless you want to define "conservative" as anal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism



We're talking typical American usage, ravi.

You're acting just like you do when you try to redefine partisan as not related to parties.

[Chris]

You bicker worse than an old lady.

http://www.command-post.org/oped/2_archives/images/Bagley%20Bickering.jpg



As I said, "Then you huff and puff."

[Chris]

So you don't read what you don't like either... pot meet kettle....

No, I read what makes sense. The rest of midcan's blog post contradicted Lincoln. Contradictions do not compute.

[Captain Obvious]

As I said, "Then you huff and puff."

You're confusing that with chuckling.

[Ravi]

We're talking typical American usage, ravi.

You're acting just like you do when you try to redefine partisan as not related to parties.
Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive. A Republican. American usage.

You're acting just like you do when you try to redefine partisan as not relating to ideology.

[Green Arrow]

Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive. A Republican. American usage.

You're acting just like you do when you try to redefine partisan as not relating to ideology.

Is Republican right-wing, or does the GOP, like the Democratic Party, straddle the middle, with members both right and left? Because TR was not right-wing, regardless of his party allegiance.

[Green Arrow]

I think it's sad that once again, a conservative manifesto ignores Coolidge and praises Reagan. I will give it points for honesty in admitting that one cannot be conservative without also being a social conservative.

[Libhater]

Is Republican right-wing, or does the GOP, like the Democratic Party, straddle the middle, with members both right and left? Because TR was not right-wing, regardless of his party allegiance.

TR was a RINO similar to 'W' Bush in that TR paved the progressive way for his cousin Franklin R to bring progressivism to its peak, that is
until obummer decided to continue the progressive legacy of institutionalized socialism.

[Ravi]

Is Republican right-wing, or does the GOP, like the Democratic Party, straddle the middle, with members both right and left? Because TR was not right-wing, regardless of his party allegiance.
Yes, members both left and right. Therefore, like I said, progressives can be either conservative or liberal.

[Green Arrow]

Yes, members both left and right. Therefore, like I said, progressives can be either conservative or liberal.

The math doesn't add up. Progressivism is not conservative or liberal, but a "third way" of sorts, like libertarianism. Additionally, the Republican/Democrat parties are not conservative and liberal, but have members from all four ideologies (and then some).

[Green Arrow]

TR was a RINO similar to 'W' Bush in that TR paved the progressive way for his cousin Franklin R to bring progressivism to its peak, that is
until obummer decided to continue the progressive legacy of institutionalized socialism.

TR would not have supported FDR. They may have shared a policy or two, but they were very different men.

[Mr. Right]

The funniest thing about leftist/progressive/socialist is that they give so little of their own money to charity, yet plead for at the heel of a government boot, to take from those who strive to succeed and prosper.

[Chris]

Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive. A Republican. American usage.

You're acting just like you do when you try to redefine partisan as not relating to ideology.


Indeed he was. Now when was that, ravi? Early 1900s, right. Times change. Parties change. But progressivism doesn't. Partisan is about party, not ideology. One is not a partisan because one is progressive or conservative or libertarian, one is partisan if one puts party above principle. When we talk about the partisan bickering, we mean the opposition of parties. When we talk about bipartisan agreement, we mean parties coming together. We've been through this. You're just being obstitnant like you are about Jefferson.

[Chris]

TR was a RINO similar to 'W' Bush in that TR paved the progressive way for his cousin Franklin R to bring progressivism to its peak, that is
until obummer decided to continue the progressive legacy of institutionalized socialism.



I think back then Republicans were progressive. There was however back then an Old Right faction opposed to progressivism.

[Chris]

The math doesn't add up. Progressivism is not conservative or liberal, but a "third way" of sorts, like libertarianism. Additionally, the Republican/Democrat parties are not conservative and liberal, but have members from all four ideologies (and then some).



I'd equate progressivism with modern liberalism.

[Green Arrow]

I'd equate progressivism with modern liberalism.

I wouldn't.

[Green Arrow]

The funniest thing about leftist/progressive/socialist is that they give so little of their own money to charity, yet plead for at the heel of a government boot, to take from those who strive to succeed and prosper.

Really? You know this about every leftist/progressive/socialist?

[midcan5]

I stopped at Lincoln.

No worries lots of people fear the truth.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/24360-What-a-conservative-actually-is?p=570580&viewfull=1#post570580

No nation was ever founded by conservatives, no positive policy was ever created by conservatives, in order to do something, anything, they'd have to stop whining and pointing fingers, but then what would they to be.

[Libhater]

TR would not have supported FDR. They may have shared a policy or two, but they were very different men.

Yeah, how so? The only difference betwixt the two was that Teddy had more balls and was ready to fight for American
interests where his couz fdr had to be coaxed into fighting against Hitler. Tell us how their predilection for progressive
policy differed?

[Mister D]

No worries lots of people fear the truth.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/24360-What-a-conservative-actually-is?p=570580&viewfull=1#post570580

No nation was ever founded by conservatives, no positive policy was ever created by conservatives, in order to do something, anything, they'd have to stop whining and pointing fingers, but then what would they to be.

Damn...you must have been bitch slapped harder than I thought:

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/23697-Could-liberalism-exist-without-conservatism?p=553819&viewfull=1#post553819

And then again here:

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/23697-Could-liberalism-exist-without-conservatism?p=554520&viewfull=1#post554520

[Chris]

No worries lots of people fear the truth.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/24360-What-a-conservative-actually-is?p=570580&viewfull=1#post570580

No nation was ever founded by conservatives, no positive policy was ever created by conservatives, in order to do something, anything, they'd have to stop whining and pointing fingers, but then what would they to be.


Well, if Lincoln spoke the truth, what you added contradicted that and was therefore false, so why read it, waste of time.

[Chris]

I wouldn't.

I'll grant you you are using it it's more historical sense and I in its more contemporary sense, like above where someone conjoined liberal/progressive/left.

[Peter1469]

Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive. A Republican. American usage.

You're acting just like you do when you try to redefine partisan as not relating to ideology.

There was a left wing and right wing progressive movement in America. On the chart we are using to place member's test results the progressives would be above the center line towards the top; and left or right is self explanatory with regards to that chart.

[Peter1469]

I think it's sad that once again, a conservative manifesto ignores Coolidge and praises Reagan. I will give it points for honesty in admitting that one cannot be conservative without also being a social conservative.

The political compass that we are using has two axises (also spelled axes). X and Y.

The horizontal axis (X) represents economic freedom. The vertical axis (Y) represents social freedom. It seems as if most posters aren't putting all of this together.

[Peter1469]

I'd equate progressivism with modern liberalism.

I do as well, with the caveat that I am referring to the political leadership. Not main stream Americans.

[Bob]

Well, the political compass cleared it all up. :angry:

[Peter1469]

Well, the political compass cleared it all up. :angry:

What do you need to know?

[The Sage of Main Street]

Feder is another Vietnam Era draftdodger. As usual, the Conservative Con Men talk the talk but won't walk the walk.

[The Sage of Main Street]

To these idealist narcissists, trickledown looks like gold water.

[Mr. Right]

Really? You know this about every leftist/progressive/socialist?

Sir, I'm just going by the published stats.

[Green Arrow]

Sir, I'm just going by the published stats.

Did you stop to consider that the entire premise behind those "stats" is ridiculously flawed?