Why don't you Libtard/ Progressives/ Democrats just say it?

Socrtease said:
And the Democratic party was the conservative party in the 40's and 50's, which I said in my post and you so conveniently ignored. You are willfully ignorant of your past because it does not suit your political leanings today. Strom Thurmond was indeed a democrat and became a republican when the Democratic party became the party of civil liberties and civil rights.
Click to expand...

And the Founders were liberal in 1776 and 1783. So what?:pke:

The Democrat Party were slavers and fought a Civil War against Radical Republicans. After getting their asses kicked they passed segregation laws. After getting those laws tossed out they formed the KKK.
 
Southern Man said:
And the Founders were liberal in 1776 and 1783. So what?:pke:

The Democrat Party were slavers and fought a Civil War against Radical Republicans. After getting their asses kicked they passed segregation laws. After getting those laws tossed out they formed the KKK.
Click to expand...
And they were conservatives the whole time. They sought to retain the old ways. That is what made them conservative.
 
[Objectives]

The Conservative Party’s objectives are to: build and lead opposition to intrusive government agencies and policies at the federal, state and local level; promote initiatives and ideas that address issues via the private sector; support candidates that understand the primary purpose of government is to protect its citizens from foreign and domestic threats; create a civil and social order in which citizens can achieve their best without regard to social class, racial/ethnic origin or special interest groups.

True Conservatism Clarified

Conservatives believe the local community is better designed to handle the problems of the citizen than the federal government. Conservatives stand firmly against the centralization of government (Obama healthcare), extension of economic functions by the government (takeover of car companies), a state education that enforces uniformity of character and opinion and the decay of traditional family life (gay marriage) and local associations.

True American Conservatism firmly embraces the power of the individual who values self-reliance, responsibility and liberty. Those essential values are complimented by the virtues of common sense, a sense of justice, temperance and the courage to live by them.

Foreign policy should not be the imposition of American institutions around the world. American institutions are the product of a common history and people. These concepts should not be thrust frivolously upon other nations. To do so trivializes the importance of the events surrounding the founding and historical experiences of this nation. Conservatives believe in the obvious exceptionalism that the United States represents.

The consummate Conservative believes life is a contract with our American history, our present condition and our posterity. Attachment to this belief system prescribes that we not consume to the detriment of our posterity. We shun overconsumption and reckless use of natural resources. Conservatives, through Republican distortion, have been associated with gross materialism and consumerism. True Conservatives believe that charity and compassion reign supreme over avarice and compulsion.

Conservatism is not like the socialistic government that promises an abundance of materialism for all. Conservatism promises equal opportunity (not equal outcome ) so that society can be successful and allow all citizens to share in its wealth. Historically, Conservatives have warned of a “creeping socialism” and in 2009 this is sadly coming to fruition as government continues to expand into all aspects of society.
Click to expand...
http://www.conservativepartyusa.org/conservativepartyny/?page_id=83
 
Aspire to, yes. I used to be a Town Chairman of the CPONY, as well as on a County Judicial Selection Committee, both elected Party positions.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
with all due respect, so do most liberals.
Click to expand...
That's not exactly true. It's not exactly true of all conservatives either. It's the extremes of each that don't care about the rights of others. Social conservatives tend to be at the political extremes as are progressive liberals. Either term is one I reject personally. Only a dupe or a partisan considers themselves one or the other.

I am a free American. There are some issues in which I am conservative and some issues I'm quite liberal on and I'll be damned if I let some politician sweep me into a box. I'm neither a liberal or a conservative. I'm an American! :clink:
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's not exactly true. It's not exactly true of all conservatives either. It's the extremes of each that don't care about the rights of others. Social conservatives tend to be at the political extremes as are progressive liberals. Either term is one I reject personally. Only a dupe or a partisan considers themselves one or the other.

I am a free American. There are some issues in which I am conservative and some issues I'm quite liberal on and I'll be damned if I let some politician sweep me into a box. I'm neither a liberal or a conservative. I'm an American! :clink:
Click to expand...

Care to be specific on how a social conservative policy has restricted your Constitutional rights?
 
Southern Man said:
OK let me explain this to you as simply as possible.

My argument was stated: “Solitary should have no expectation of privacy talking to a non-citizen of the US from a foreign territory with known terrorist activity.” [emp added]

You then ax’d: “how would they know it's terrorist activity?”

I replied: “Because its Pakistan, duh.”, then I *prepared for your straw man*.

To which you predictably replied: “so all Pakistanis[sic] are terrorists?”

My argument discussed a “territory”, and you created a caricature of that by asserting that I meant ‘“all” citizens in that territory’, meeting the definition of a straw man precisely.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. You haven't explained your comment "Because it's Pakistan, duh". What makes Pakistan special?

There is known terrorist activity in the USA (i.e. McVeigh and the Murrow Bldg bombing, the KKK, NeoNazi's ect)

There is known Terrorist in Ireland (IRA)

In Northern Ireland (Irish CIRA, Orange Volunteers)

This is known Terrorist in India (Sikh's)

There are known Terrorist in the Philippines (Abu Sayyaf)

There are known Terrorist in Greece (Revolutionary Nuclei)

Israel has known Terrorist (Kach and Kahane Chai)

Japan has known Terrorist (Aum Supreme Truth and the Japanese Red Army)

Spain has known Terrorist (The Basque Euzkadi Ta Askatasuna)

Sri Lanka has known Terrorist (The Tamil Tigers)

Turkey has known Terrorist (The Kurdistan workers party)

So either your argument is indeed a Strawman or by using your logic since there are known terrorist organizations with known terrorist activity in the USA that, prior to Sept 11, 2001, had killed more Americans then foreign terrorist, I should have no expectations of privacy when making a phone call because I'm making a phone call in or to a country with known Terrorist/Terrorist Activity.

You're logic defies reason!

Please explain to me what makes Pakistan so different from all these other nations with known terrorist (including the USA) that the government can, with impunity, violate my rights?

You're either for freedom and liberty or you are not. Apparently as a conservative you are not.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Bullshit. You haven't explained your comment "Because it's Pakistan, duh". What makes Pakistan special?

There is known terrorist activity in the USA (i.e. McVeigh and the Murrow Bldg bombing, the KKK, NeoNazi's ect)

There is known Terrorist in Ireland (IRA)

In Northern Ireland (Irish CIRA, Orange Volunteers)

This is known Terrorist in India (Sikh's)

There are known Terrorist in the Philippines (Abu Sayyaf)

There are known Terrorist in Greece (Revolutionary Nuclei)

Israel has known Terrorist (Kach and Kahane Chai)

Japan has known Terrorist (Aum Supreme Truth and the Japanese Red Army)

Spain has known Terrorist (The Basque Euzkadi Ta Askatasuna)

Sri Lanka has known Terrorist (The Tamil Tigers)

Turkey has known Terrorist (The Kurdistan workers party)

So either your argument is indeed a Strawman or by using your logic since there are known terrorist organizations with known terrorist activity in the USA that, prior to Sept 11, 2001, had killed more Americans then foreign terrorist, I should have no expectations of privacy when making a phone call because I'm making a phone call in or to a country with known Terrorist/Terrorist Activity.

You're logic defies reason!

Please explain to me what makes Pakistan so different from all these other nations with known terrorist (including the USA) that the government can, with impunity, violate my rights?

You're either for freedom and liberty or you are not. Apparently as a conservative you are not.
Click to expand...
Pakistan was an example, duh.
 
Southern Man said:
Care to be specific Mott or don't you dare? :pke:
Click to expand...
Absolutely I can be specific. Look at the local community control of civil liberties in the south where blacks were historically and systematically denied their civil rights via parochial politics. It took the intervention of the Federal Government to enforce their rights, freedoms and liberties. The same is presently occurring with Gay Americans where social conservatives are denying them their constitutionally protected right to free association via parochial politics. (Though convienantly and hypocritically conservatives are all to happy to nationalize the gay marriage issue when local community politics accepts this view).

The kind of parochial foreign policy approach that your little essay suggest of disengagement is extreme parochial foreign policy and we saw from the last Administration how disastrous this "Go it alone" parochialism in foreign policy can be.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Absolutely I can be specific. Look at the local community control of civil liberties in the south where blacks were historically and systematically denied their civil rights via parochial politics. It took the intervention of the Federal Government to enforce their rights, freedoms and liberties. The same is presently occurring with Gay Americans where social conservatives are denying them their constitutionally protected right to free association via parochial politics. (Though convienantly and hypocritically conservatives are all to happy to nationalize the gay marriage issue when local community politics accepts this view).

The kind of parochial foreign policy approach that your little essay suggest of disengagement is extreme parochial foreign policy and we saw from the last Administration how disastrous this "Go it alone" parochialism in foreign policy can be.
Click to expand...

Again, with regards to civil rights, you confuse 60's era Southern Democrats with modern Conservatives.

Please elaborate on your "Gay Americans ... right to free association" accusation.
 
Southern Man said:
Again, with regards to civil rights, you confuse 60's era Southern Democrats with modern Conservatives.

Please elaborate on your "Gay Americans ... right to free association" accusation.
Click to expand...

1) Social conservatives fought to keep the laws against sodomy on the books.

2) Social conservatives fought to keep the 10 commandments monument in the Alabama State Supreme Courthouse lobby.

3) Social conservatives fought (and won in some states) to prevent gay and lesbian couples from adopting children. (often those children were unwanted in the normal adoption process)

4) Social conservatives have fought to keep Blue Laws in place to close businesses on sundays, regardless of the religious beliefs of the business owner.

5) Social conservatives have fought against sex education in public schools.

6) Social conservatives have fought against teaching evolution in public schools.

7) Social conservatives have fought against removing the government from the entire institution of marriage.
 
WinterBorn said:
1) Social conservatives fought to keep the laws against sodomy on the books.

2) Social conservatives fought to keep the 10 commandments monument in the Alabama State Supreme Courthouse lobby.

3) Social conservatives fought (and won in some states) to prevent gay and lesbian couples from adopting children. (often those children were unwanted in the normal adoption process)

4) Social conservatives have fought to keep Blue Laws in place to close businesses on sundays, regardless of the religious beliefs of the business owner.

5) Social conservatives have fought against sex education in public schools.

6) Social conservatives have fought against teaching evolution in public schools.

7) Social conservatives have fought against removing the government from the entire institution of marriage.
Click to expand...

1. Because its immoral.
2. Because its moral and historic.
3. Because every child deserves a normal life.
4. Some have, but its not a national position.
5. Against explicit sex education.
6. See item 4.
7. That wouldn't be necessary if queer marriage wasn't being forced on us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top