Tea Party Sustainability

Dixie said:
You are saying something convolutedly retarded, Damo. By your philosophical interpretation of "conservative" all who fight the status quot are liberal, all who accept it are conservative. IF we lived in a Libertarian Utopia from top to bottom, the Liberals would be more than content to maintain the status quot. Thus, they would be conservatives? Happy little conservatives living happily in their perfect Liberal Utopia! If you support Roe v. Wade and don't want to see it overturned, you must be a conservative!

While the pragmatic and fundamental basics of conservatism are often aligned with the status quot, it only means conservatives are prudent. Since what is the status quot, is also very often, what is best common sense, it only means conservatives use a lot of common sense. You seem to think a conservative is basically a sheep, a follower of whatever is the status quot. I disagree with your analysis completely. First of all, conservatism as a movement, could never exist, if it were committed to defending the status quot. Perhaps this explains your warped perspectives of social conservatism?

You stop sounding like a conservative, and start sounding like a pinhead, when you fail to comprehend the value of a strong moral and spiritual foundation for your conservative beliefs. Without that underpinning, conservatism often fails, because there is nothing to answer the bleeding heart complaints from the left. You've left the ideology vulnerable, and liberals can declare checkmate.
Click to expand...
No. All who work to radically change government to fit within a specific belief system are radical, not "liberal" or "conservative".
 
Damocles said:
No. All who work to radically change government to fit within a specific belief system are radical, not "liberal" or "conservative".
Click to expand...

Congrats Mr. McCain, you have the single biggest liberal on the board, giving you THANKS! ....there's your sign!

Social Conservatives seek to RETURN America to the government based on the original Judeo-Christian belief system, which establishes that all men are created equal and endowed their rights by the Creator. They seek to RESTORE our values to a particular belief system, not "radically change to fit" them.

I really don't understand what "radical change" legislation the social conservatives have advanced in recent years, the only thing I can think of is DOMA, but that was not "radical change" at all, it was securing against a radical change being attempted. Social Conservatives are against legalizing dope... but again, they seek to maintain conditions, not "radically change" them. Respect for the sanctity of life? I think that is not a "radical change" from what America has always stood for.
 
midcan5 said:
The tea party has already disappeared. ...
Click to expand...

The "Newspaper of Record" disagrees with you.
Victories Suggest Wider Appeal of Tea Party

The Tea Party victories by Rand Paul of Kentucky and Marco Rubio of Florida underscored the extent to which Republicans and Democrats alike may have underestimated the power of the Tea Party, a loosely-affiliated, at times ill-defined, coalition of grass-roots libertarians and disaffected Republicans.

In exit polls, four in 10 voters expressed support for the Tea Party Movement. And Mr. Paul called his win part of “a tea party tidal wave” in his victory speech.
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/us/politics/03tea.html
 
Dixie said:
Congrats Mr. McCain, you have the single biggest liberal on the board, giving you THANKS! ....there's your sign!

Social Conservatives seek to RETURN America to the government based on the original Judeo-Christian belief system, which establishes that all men are created equal and endowed their rights by the Creator. They seek to RESTORE our values to a particular belief system, not "radically change to fit" them.

I really don't understand what "radical change" legislation the social conservatives have advanced in recent years, the only thing I can think of is DOMA, but that was not "radical change" at all, it was securing against a radical change being attempted. Social Conservatives are against legalizing dope... but again, they seek to maintain conditions, not "radically change" them. Respect for the sanctity of life? I think that is not a "radical change" from what America has always stood for.
Click to expand...
Dude, even liberals can understand actual language over rhetoric. It's silly to pretend that 2+2 isn't 4 just because some liberal might agree with me if I said it is.

If you work for radical change you are a radical, even if the change is towards the right rather than the left politically. We've spent so much time redefining the words that we can't even have a conversation using correctly derived definitions any longer. It's inane that, on a board like this, we can't simply converse using the actual definitions of words rather than the rhetoric laden simplicity created for the masses. Conserve is not equivalent to restore.
 
Damocles said:
Dude, even liberals can understand actual language over rhetoric. It's silly to pretend that 2+2 isn't 4 just because some liberal might agree with me if I said it is.

If you work for radical change you are a radical, even if the change is towards the right rather than the left politically. We've spent so much time redefining the words that we can't even have a conversation using correctly derived definitions any longer. It's inane that, on a board like this, we can't simply converse using the actual definitions of words rather than the rhetoric laden simplicity created for the masses. Conserve is not equivalent to restore.
Click to expand...

You've taken a step backward, and are attempting to apply a generic simplistic conventional definition to "conservative" and "liberal" instead of a political definition. It's cute, and I'm sure your many fans admire how smart you were to figure that out on your own, but when the discussion is about politics on a political board, the generic definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" have very little practical use.

It doesn't matter if "conserve" is not the same as "restore" ...you made the charge that someone (presumably on the right) was trying to radically change our laws in the name of conservatism. I asked you for examples of this radical change, and you've not presented any.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top