Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have not been able to figure out what they really are either. I don't think they know. They preach all that crap about "freedom from government" and yet want to regulate the most personal details of people's lifes such as forcing women to have babies, deciding what kind of sex is allowed and putting people in jail for "sodomy" if they have unapproved sex and telling people that they cannot have a beer on Sunday because it is a "sin".
Have you read the thread? It is apparent that you have not --- you really ought to before posting....
Conservative = Republican ashamed of being republican
Republicans ditched Bush (hanging on to Cheney and Karl Rove) and became "conservatives" when Bush's popularity went below 25%.
I think a lot of republicans were loathe to leave the party not because they wanted to distance themselves from W's bad press but because they hoped to be able to gain control of the party back from the neocons and religious right. They couldn't, they left. That you refuse to see the truth of this doesn't speak well of your willingness to see the situation clearly.
A conservative is someone who belongs to the GOP (Garbage old party.)
You wish! As I'm reading this thread and noticing that the real and interesting dialoge that is going on between two posters is being completely ignored in favor of lumping conservatives with neocons by our more liberal posters ---well, I can only think this is wishful thinking by democrats who perhaps fear an actual third party rising from the ashes of the GOP.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,458,803 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dopo
Conservative = Republican ashamed of being republican
Republicans ditched Bush (hanging on to Cheney and Karl Rove) and became "conservatives" when Bush's popularity went below 25%.
Not even sure they call themselves that anymore. There seems to be an awful lot of "Independents" and "Libertarians" that suddenly popped up like mushrooms, post-Bush (even if they don't sound any different than before).
The Left tries too hard to look liberal, the GOP wants to come across as a religious organization. Ron Paul was the man, but he was too direct in his message (I mean, abolishing the IRS and the Department of Education, c'mon!).
If the states were allowed to run their own affairs, like they were in the beginning, then there would be no need for things like the IRS, Dept of Ed, or even the DEA for that matter.
Wide ranging and far reaching government mandate would no longer have a place in this union of states.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,458,803 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigskydude
If the states were allowed to run their own affairs, like they were in the beginning, then there would be no need for things like the IRS, Dept of Ed, or even the DEA for that matter.
The South was (and still is) a good example why that doesn't work out so well in practice.
The federal governments only job should be protecting our inalienable rights. Everything else should be under the jurisdiction of the state and local governments.
You wish! As I'm reading this thread and noticing that the real and interesting dialoge that is going on between two posters is being completely ignored in favor of lumping conservatives with neocons by our more liberal posters
Why pay attention to them? It's like paying attention to the flies buzzing around food at a picnic - what's the point.
One thing I find striking about this thread, is that NO ONE has even tried to refute the philosophy behind the definition I gave:
A conservative is someone who believes society is most prosperous and free, when govenment does only the things necessary to their freedom, that the private people or groups CANNOT do.
MMID drew one correct conclusion from it, but followed with a highly liberal non sequitor. He later seemed to imply that the definition of "conservative" should change with changing culture... which would mean that it's not a definition at all, but merely a placeholder.
But no one has said, "No, Acorn, society is more free and prosperous when a central government expands enough to help everyone with every problem they ask it to help, and charges taxes accordingly." ....or anything like that. Yet that is the basic philosophy behind the modern liberalism we have been seeing since the 1930s (Levin calls it statism), and is now exploding in this country at a rate not seen since 1937.
I wonder why no one has tried to defend that idea here?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
