Padded-glove Righties...

So now the dust settles from Election '08, and we begin to get accustomed to hearing, "President Obama." Most of the left is acting like retarded kids on a field trip, while they see how fast they can spend our retirement. Some are still up there on Cloud Nine, believing that this political win somehow nullifies the viewpoints of almost half of the voters. That Obama will now be able to completely silence the conservative movement once and for all.

Indeed, the Fascist-Socialist Party...err...Democrats, have the proverbial Fairness Doctrine in their quiver. And indeed, they will become brazen enough to use it. At this point in time, why bother... Republicans are doing a pretty good job of beating themselves up. In post after post, thread after thread, I see people who I have come to know as "core" conservatives, falling all over themselves to be accepted by the Noble Ones of The Great Messiah. Those who have previously defined themselves as "Moderate" conservatives, are particularly annoying to me. These righties are having to go through the emotional phase of "Denial" before they come to "Acceptance." Perhaps it is because they somehow convinced themselves that "most of America" is like them, thinks the way they do... you know? Conservative, but not extreme!

Yeah, they believe in small government and less taxes, but let the liberals destroy our nation's moral foundation with social-moral cultural issues. Yeah, I like making Big Money, but I can do without the Fundies. What they monumentally fail to understand, is the way in which our Constitution was designed to withstand anything, and how removal of the foundation for it has incrementally changed America. This is the "Change" Obama and the Libs speak of, a "change" in our very culture, in who we are as a nation. Righties sometimes like to think of "change" as in "reform" ...making things better by revisiting, and rethinking them.

Dixie's Theory of Liberal Accusation states, any Liberal will loudly protest and complain about the very discrepancies they, themselves are most guilty of. So when we hear them go on and on for years, about PNAC, and New World Order, NEOCONS, Carlisle Group, secret meetings... world domination... blah blah blah... we can be certain, they are wholly capable of this sort of thing themselves. But the Liberals do this through the mask of activism, the ACLU, NOW, MoveOn.org, and promote their propaganda through every media outlet, from The DailyKos to The Daily Show. It all revolves around the common theme of "helping" someone. Namely, YOU!

The Southpaws of Politics have weapons the right doesn't have. They can always go to the Emotional Bag, and come up with a way to make the right look like Dick Cheney on a dreary and cold Moscow morning. They can trot out a movie or play about Bush, as some ignorant reckless cowboy, and play on the emotions of people who have been brainwashed already. Conditioned like young lambs at the veal factory. All they have to do, is focus on something, and it becomes burned into the American psyche. Through the "In-Crowd" cultural scenes, endless internet resources, many of which are absolute garbage, not worthy of the bandwidth it uses.

As we embark on this new avenue in history, there are some on the Right who just haven't gotten it yet. They continue to use the padded gloves and attempt to fight fairly and objectively. They politely preface their remarks with some sort of nod to Bush's Stupidity, or how the Republicans blew it... and then, they fall head-first into the trap of offering social conservatism up, as some kind of "compromise" with the Devil...err..Democrats! Yeah, sure, we'll throw the "Religious Right" under the bus, along with all those pesky social issues they are associated with. Just so long as we get our tax cuts!

John McCain was representative of playing fairly and objectively, throwing the social conservatives under the bus, and pretending you can have a rational and reasonable dialogue with the left! He made a career in politics doing just that. Some of us just seem to be in a boxing match with a street gang. We want to fall all over ourselves to appear non-extreme to the left, in hopes that we might actually find common ground, and it doesn't matter one whit to them, they are going to cut your throat out because you are a Rightie!

I have an extensive history of postings here, feel free to search the database, I challenge you to show me one instance of a SERIOUS extreme viewpoint on my behalf. Now, the pinheads can (and do) twist my comments and snippets of my posts into absurdly out-of-context exaggerations, but when you actually read my opinions on things, you will find that I am not an extremist person. On all those tests the Libertarians put out to show you what a good Libertarian you would make, I always score almost dead center, just a little to the right of center in fiscal policy. I fall clearly in the "moderate" range. Yet, the stigma and reputation I have come to enjoy here, would have you believe my viewpoints are on the right fringe of extremism.

They are winning the fight. They are successfully deprogramming conservatives. They are making you completely forget the principles our nation was founded on, and why we are conservative republicans. Foundational reasoning is apparent to anyone who has read the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence... We are endowed by our Creator, certain inalienable rights, among them, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Think about that... We declare ourselves independent because we believe we have been endowed this right to self-governance, to effect the objectives of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, as well as other things we are entitled to in the eyes of the Creator. This is the foundation of our nation, and to a larger degree, conservatism. Yes, I said that! You aren't mistaken. The foundational belief in "our Creator" is the hallmark of the Conservative platform, and is the basis for all other Conservative views.

Fear is a powerful thing. The left has, again successfully, stigmatized this "religious" belief, and many on the right have fallen for it. Fearing they might be seen as one of those Right-wing-radical-fundamentalists-like-tim-mcveigh! Meanwhile, they continue to erode away our very foundation, and we simply allow it to happen while we fall all over ourselves to not "appear" extreme! Fear of a Religious Theocracy is about the most absurd fear they will interject. Because of the brilliance of the Constitution, it is based on the foundational belief in "our Creator" yet it grants the freedom of all, to worship as they please, or not to worship, if that is what they desire. It doesn't "establish" any religious belief, or mandate that we must adhere to any religious belief. That doesn't alter what is the foundational principle for allowing such freedom, the endowment of "our Creator." The Declaration of Independence could have used "Our God Almighty" but it didn't... the writers purposely chose the wording to convey a universal thought and concept. We don't have to agree on the issue of "GOD" to establish our universal rights as humans, these things are endowed to us by whatever it is we believe in.

Yet, here we all are, debating what to do with the Republican party, which way to go... do we become even more "liberal" and abandon social conservatism? Do we move more toward a Libertarian philosophy? Or could it be, we need to take the damn padded gloves off, and start standing up for what we are again? Maybe we should come out of denial and accept that we can't ever have meaningful dialogue with the left? Maybe we need to find our voice again, find the courage to stand up for the principles we believe in, even when it's not popular, especially when it's not popular!
 
The biggest problem I have with social conservatism is that it goes against my conservative desire for less government.

The social issues that separate the liberals and conservatives are the least important issues, in my opinion.

Gay marriage is one that could be cured by removing the government from the entire marriage equation.

Legislating morality is great, when you are discussing univerals moral issues such as murder or theft. But when you start legislating sexuality, giving preferences to one religion over another, or trying to return to some 1950s Ozzie & Harriet ideal, you have lost my backing. And many other conservative's backing.



The biggest issues that face our nation right now are financial issues. When we are on the brink of bankrupcy, social issues just don't carry much weight.

Fix the tax code (or replace it with the Fair Tax). Stop unnecessary government intervention. Prevent the removal of the 2nd Amendment. Keep the government from screwing up our healthcare system any more than it is.

These are issues the conservatives should be addressing. That will nullify the emotional weapons.

And sometimes punching with padded gloves is done more to protect your hands than to prevent the blows from doing harm.
 
Dixie you are why people say the south is full of dunbasses. And didyou pick Dixie because your in the KKK.
 
Dix, can't you blog on your blog feature that Damo installed, instead of on the forums? Just provide us with abstracts and advertize your latest blogs, if you must.
 
I'll be damned, there IS a blog feature. Who knew? (other than the 5 or 6 poor souls blogging there)
 
I'll be damned, there IS a blog feature. Who knew? (other than the 5 or 6 poor souls blogging there)

LOLZ Damo recently unveiled it under the Announcements forum, and has an "example" blog entry.

Since most won't notice when someone blogs, that is why I reccommended that Dix submit abstracts and advertize new entries. Most likely, people can subscribe to blogs, the way you can on MySpace or actual blogs via email.
 
Dix, can't you blog on your blog feature that Damo installed, instead of on the forums? Just provide us with abstracts and advertize your latest blogs, if you must.

No, I prefer to make my commentary here on the forum, so it can be discussed by the intelligent people who somehow find reason to remain here amongst the insane. If you would like to go "blog" be my guest, but last time I checked, no one appointed you my supervisor of affairs, so you can basically go fuck yourself.
 
No, I prefer to make my commentary here on the forum, so it can be discussed by the intelligent people who somehow find reason to remain here amongst the insane. If you would like to go "blog" be my guest, but last time I checked, no one appointed you my supervisor of affairs, so you can basically go fuck yourself.

It was just a suggestion.
 
The biggest problem I have with social conservatism is that it goes against my conservative desire for less government.

The social issues that separate the liberals and conservatives are the least important issues, in my opinion.

Gay marriage is one that could be cured by removing the government from the entire marriage equation.

Legislating morality is great, when you are discussing univerals moral issues such as murder or theft. But when you start legislating sexuality, giving preferences to one religion over another, or trying to return to some 1950s Ozzie & Harriet ideal, you have lost my backing. And many other conservative's backing.



The biggest issues that face our nation right now are financial issues. When we are on the brink of bankrupcy, social issues just don't carry much weight.

Fix the tax code (or replace it with the Fair Tax). Stop unnecessary government intervention. Prevent the removal of the 2nd Amendment. Keep the government from screwing up our healthcare system any more than it is.

These are issues the conservatives should be addressing. That will nullify the emotional weapons.

And sometimes punching with padded gloves is done more to protect your hands than to prevent the blows from doing harm.

You're not a conservative. You are a fraud, like Maineman, but with a different approach. You want people to be fooled into thinking you are some "new age" conservative who can rationalize liberal viewpoints. You're an idiot, because you assume that people can't see through this. You're one of the ones who caused McCain to go chasing after the "moderate" vote, and will now contend they actually thought about voting for him, but in the end... you couldn't see past Sarah Palin, or whatever.

You are a liberal, Sol. Plain and simple! Your ideology is liberal! You stand for liberal ideas! You want liberal policies! While at the same time, arguing that you are indeed a conservative! ....Seeeeee me? If I can be a conservative libtard, so can you!! That's your game, Sol, and it doesn't fool anyone. ....Oh, except for Libertarians, they are often fooled by frauds like you... and distracted by shiny objects!
 
You're not a conservative. You are a fraud, like Maineman, but with a different approach. You want people to be fooled into thinking you are some "new age" conservative who can rationalize liberal viewpoints. You're an idiot, because you assume that people can't see through this. You're one of the ones who caused McCain to go chasing after the "moderate" vote, and will now contend they actually thought about voting for him, but in the end... you couldn't see past Sarah Palin, or whatever.

You are a liberal, Sol. Plain and simple! Your ideology is liberal! You stand for liberal ideas! You want liberal policies! While at the same time, arguing that you are indeed a conservative! ....Seeeeee me? If I can be a conservative libtard, so can you!! That's your game, Sol, and it doesn't fool anyone. ....Oh, except for Libertarians, they are often fooled by frauds like you... and distracted by shiny objects!

Oh, so its a great scheme by me to lure unsuspecting candidates into chasing voters you claim lose elections?

lmao

Dixie, you are entitled to your on opinion. But when you launch into these tirades describing what I am or am not, you show your ignorance.

What you want the republican party to be is a group that believes exactky as you do. Good luck with that. You won't win another election with that sort of voter as your sole base.

I am conservative in many of my views. I am liberal in many of my views.

I look at each issue on its own merit. I don't lump them all together.





And of all the posts on this thread, I was the only one to reply in a somewhat civil manner. And you "decide" that I am not a conservative but some sort of liberal spy trying to undermine "your" party.


No Dixie, fuck you and your extremist views and nonsense about what you think conservatives are. You and your ilk hijacked my party and turned it into some sort of witch-hunt and hatefest.
 
The biggest problem I have with social conservatism is that it goes against my conservative desire for less government.

The social issues that separate the liberals and conservatives are the least important issues, in my opinion.

Gay marriage is one that could be cured by removing the government from the entire marriage equation.

Legislating morality is great, when you are discussing univerals moral issues such as murder or theft. But when you start legislating sexuality, giving preferences to one religion over another, or trying to return to some 1950s Ozzie & Harriet ideal, you have lost my backing. And many other conservative's backing.


The biggest issues that face our nation right now are financial issues. When we are on the brink of bankrupcy, social issues just don't carry much weight.

Fix the tax code (or replace it with the Fair Tax). Stop unnecessary government intervention. Prevent the removal of the 2nd Amendment. Keep the government from screwing up our healthcare system any more than it is.

These are issues the conservatives should be addressing. That will nullify the emotional weapons.

And sometimes punching with padded gloves is done more to protect your hands than to prevent the blows from doing harm.

You cannot remove government from legal contracts, i.e. marital contracts.

As to the question of abortion? The governement was asked by a liberal agenda to intervene in what used to be a states rights issue; again the liberal agenda wanting to have government get involved and then scream and point nasty fingers when the opposition seeks the same avenue. If you believe, as nearly half the population does, that abortion deprives life to the most vulnerable of human individules, then what avenue should they take to redress what they believe to be killing a human being?

All law is moral in its nature. The only avenue to address the law is via a legal and or political one. Because marriage is a special purvue of the Church as is abortion, it is maligned as "legislating morality" that's a canard that too many opponents of homosexual marriage and abortion have bitten into.
 
Last edited:
You cannot remove governement from legal contracts, i.e. marital contracts.

As to the question of abortion? The governement was asked by a liberal agenda to intervene in what used to be a states rights issue; again the liberal agenda wanting to have government get involved and then scream and point nasty fingers when the opposition seeks the same avenue. If you believe, as nearly half the population does, that abortion deprives life to the most vulnerable of human individules, then what avenue should they take to redress what they believe to be killing a human being?

All law is moral in its nature. The only avenue to address the law is via a legal and or political one. Because marriage is a special purvue of the Church as is abortion, it is maligned as "legislating morality" that's a canard that too many opponents of homosexual marriage and abortion have bitten into.

What it all boils down to is Solitary's willingness to abandon social conservatism, and thinking he can support a view of pure fiscal conservatism and that will suffice at making him a "conservative." When the truth of the matter is as I pointed out, social conservative principles are the root basis for all conservatism. It's not "extremist" to believe what 95% of the fucking world believes, that there is a superior power. It's not "extremist" to believe our nation was founded on the principle that "all men are created equally!" Because, that IS the truth! Asswipe "stealth" liberals like Solitary, have had some success in pulling conservatives off message, getting them to second guess their support for the social conservative ideas involved in conservatism, but these are the foundational basis for all conservative views, whether Solitary likes it or not.

No, Solitary, no one stole your party! This was never YOUR fucking party! Go join the Keith Olbermann "cool" crowd, and relish in your liberal views, and leave conservatism for those of us who truly ARE conservative to define. Thank you very much!
 
What it all boils down to is Solitary's willingness to abandon social conservatism, and thinking he can support a view of pure fiscal conservatism and that will suffice at making him a "conservative." When the truth of the matter is as I pointed out, social conservative principles are the root basis for all conservatism. It's not "extremist" to believe what 95% of the fucking world believes, that there is a superior power. It's not "extremist" to believe our nation was founded on the principle that "all men are created equally!" Because, that IS the truth! Asswipe "stealth" liberals like Solitary, have had some success in pulling conservatives off message, getting them to second guess their support for the social conservative ideas involved in conservatism, but these are the foundational basis for all conservative views, whether Solitary likes it or not.

No, Solitary, no one stole your party! This was never YOUR fucking party! Go join the Keith Olbermann "cool" crowd, and relish in your liberal views, and leave conservatism for those of us who truly ARE conservative to define. Thank you very much!

Levin has a best seller out on this very topic titled; Liberty and Tyranny. I haven't read it yet.
 
You're not a conservative. You are a fraud, like Maineman, but with a different approach. You want people to be fooled into thinking you are some "new age" conservative who can rationalize liberal viewpoints. You're an idiot, because you assume that people can't see through this. You're one of the ones who caused McCain to go chasing after the "moderate" vote, and will now contend they actually thought about voting for him, but in the end... you couldn't see past Sarah Palin, or whatever.

You are a liberal, Sol. Plain and simple! Your ideology is liberal! You stand for liberal ideas! You want liberal policies! While at the same time, arguing that you are indeed a conservative! ....Seeeeee me? If I can be a conservative libtard, so can you!! That's your game, Sol, and it doesn't fool anyone. ....Oh, except for Libertarians, they are often fooled by frauds like you... and distracted by shiny objects!

Well, I happen to be an olde conservative, in the tradition of Hamilton, etc. I guess that makes Sol and I the Ying & Yang of conservatism around here. Pretty much, I don't accept you as a conservative, the same as your attitude towards Sol.

One of the reasons I recommended that you blog is because that's basically what your post is - its really too big to be a standard post. Admittedly, I hate your writing style, and find it really weak and uneducated. While you are not alone in this (Topspin and Desh come to mind), most of the other weak writers on this site don't post blogs on the forums.

Sol is right in that the best way to protect marriage is to declare it what it is - a religious instution that needs to be abolished from civil government. Many of the recommendations he made about social issues would be more beneficial to the conservative cause than what you generally advocate.
 
Well, I happen to be an olde conservative, in the tradition of Hamilton, etc. I guess that makes Sol and I the Ying & Yang of conservatism around here. Pretty much, I don't accept you as a conservative, the same as your attitude towards Sol.

One of the reasons I recommended that you blog is because that's basically what your post is - its really too big to be a standard post. Admittedly, I hate your writing style, and find it really weak and uneducated. While you are not alone in this (Topspin and Desh come to mind), most of the other weak writers on this site don't post blogs on the forums.

Sol is right in that the best way to protect marriage is to declare it what it is - a religious instution that needs to be abolished from civil government. Many of the recommendations he made about social issues would be more beneficial to the conservative cause than what you generally advocate.

*Butting in* You cannot make marriage *only a religious institution*, though it is a sacrosanct part of the Church. Marriage cannot be divorced from civil society unless we consider all unions outside of the church civil contracts only and not marriage. I could live with that.

I disagree with your statement that Dixie does not offer interesting, albeit controversial posts. He presents himself as both educated and strong in his positions.

A Hamilton conservative eh? He was not in favor of States Rights. He wanted a big central government and elected officials for life. That's what you want?
 
Well, I happen to be an olde conservative, in the tradition of Hamilton, etc. I guess that makes Sol and I the Ying & Yang of conservatism around here. Pretty much, I don't accept you as a conservative, the same as your attitude towards Sol.

One of the reasons I recommended that you blog is because that's basically what your post is - its really too big to be a standard post. Admittedly, I hate your writing style, and find it really weak and uneducated. While you are not alone in this (Topspin and Desh come to mind), most of the other weak writers on this site don't post blogs on the forums.

Sol is right in that the best way to protect marriage is to declare it what it is - a religious instution that needs to be abolished from civil government. Many of the recommendations he made about social issues would be more beneficial to the conservative cause than what you generally advocate.

Again, I don't think anyone died and made you the literary critic of the site. So you can take your opinion of my style, and stick it the same place you stuck the opinion about me posting a blog. I am really not interested in taking advice from you on my writing, and would appreciate it if you would just shut up and move on. No one has forced you to read or participate in this thread.

The recommendations made about social issues are coming largely from the left, and those brainwashed by the left, through stigmatizing the right and anyone who dare admit they believe in God, this day and age. My position is, Conservatism as a whole, has a foundational connection to belief in God, and you are hard pressed to establish a core system of conservative values, without some level of faith in something greater than self. I am not a "religious wacko" just like I am not an "extremist" and I venture to say, you don't have the slightest clue what I "generally advocate" because you don't pay real good attention.

There is no "conservative cause" you idiot. There are conservative principles, and they start with the foundational principle that ALL MEN ARE CREATED BY THEIR GOD EQUALLY! Without that concept, Conservatism flounders... Liberalism advances... Pukes like you and Sol reign supreme at the forums, and act like you have intelligence!
 
*Butting in* You cannot make marriage *only a religious institution*, though it is a sacrosanct part of the Church. Marriage cannot be divorced from civil society unless we consider all unions outside of the church civil contracts only and not marriage. I could live with that.

I disagree with your statement that Dixie does not offer interesting, albeit controversial posts. He presents himself as both educated and strong in his positions.

A Hamilton conservative eh? He was not in favor of States Rights. He wanted a big central government and elected officials for life. That's what you want?

The family and marriage have always been the bedrock of society, but they have not always been legally recognized via contracts and so forth. That is what I mean.

Hamilton wanted a strong central government that was not handicapped from doing its job. He believed that officials must be able to be taken seriously abroad in order to build security and public credit. For this same reason, Adams embarrassed himself in the Titles episode regarding the president. Sadly, so many people have made a mockery out of state's rights over the years that they have been easily taken away.
 
*Butting in* You cannot make marriage *only a religious institution*, though it is a sacrosanct part of the Church. Marriage cannot be divorced from civil society unless we consider all unions outside of the church civil contracts only and not marriage. I could live with that.

I disagree with your statement that Dixie does not offer interesting, albeit controversial posts. He presents himself as both educated and strong in his positions.

A Hamilton conservative eh? He was not in favor of States Rights. He wanted a big central government and elected officials for life. That's what you want?

The benefits bestowed on marriage by the government could be extended to all unions or none of the unions without any real statement concerning the church and marriage. In fact, it is the very solution that Dixie (Mr. Real Conservative) has already agreed would be the best answer.

And Dixie, there are more than a few of us who follow fiscal conservatism but could care less about social conservatism. In fact, I would wager it is the majority of conservatives today.

So rant all you want. I am not going anywhere.
 
Back
Top