Foundation of Conservatism

But that very subjectivity is only served in a free system. Different strokes for different folks, doesn't exist in a totalitarian regime.

Go lobby some more for failed fascist executive salaries. Go waste your life more on fascism like you're already doing.

Leave the thinking to nonbrainwash victims.

you do realize you didn't actually debate my point

all you did was blather your opinion about fascism....you only get away with it because fascism is not as defined as other types of government, but you ignore the mussolini's of the world who implemented obama fascism by controlling corporations....because it fits your narrow world view
 
As usual Dixie, none of these peons can refute your argument. You are suspended high above them...

[youtube]854fE08Nvog[/youtube]
 
And just what the hell are conservatives "conserving" anyway? Because so far it sure as hell hasn't been people's jobs, money or Smokey the Bear's back yard!

Where the so called "religious right" correct when their leaders were caught cheating on their wives with little boys, or women other than their wives? Were they right to advocate assasination, to back handedly demonize all muslims? To blame all the deaths in New Orleans not on gov't incompetance, but as an act of retribution by God? Do some people actually believe that because we stamp "In God We Trust" on our currency, that as goes Creation, so goes our economy?

And Ronnie Reagan....was he so moral and just when he sold out his friends and co-workers to McCarthyism when he was head of the Screen Actors Guild? Was he so right with God when he busted the PATCO union who were trying warn America of the dangers of understaffed, overworked traffic controllers? Was he such a genius when he gave us Reaganomics? Iran-Contra?

Foundation of Conservatism? I sure hope it wasn't built with the crud I just spot lighted.
 
you do realize you didn't actually debate my point

all you did was blather your opinion about fascism....you only get away with it because fascism is not as defined as other types of government, but you ignore the mussolini's of the world who implemented obama fascism by controlling corporations....because it fits your narrow world view

Allowing huge salaries in taken over companies merely keeps CEOS on board with the fascism. It's much more likely to occur if executives face no personal pain. In fact, they will seek it out as a source of operating capital and personal reward.

This is easy.
 
the warcry of the socialist/communist. they must destroy the 'natural rights' crowd to be able to control them.

Molon Labe

SMY, it doesn't matter who's warcry it is if it's true. It's a logical fallacy to argue simply by appealing to consequences, or by associating an argument with something you think that readers of your statement don't like. If natural rights do not exist, they do not exist, and that is that.
 
SMY, it doesn't matter who's warcry it is if it's true. It's a logical fallacy to argue simply by appealing to consequences, or by associating an argument with something you think that readers of your statement don't like. If natural rights do not exist, they do not exist, and that is that.

explain how they don't exist.
 
Social Conservatism is the foundational cornerstone of Conservatism. ………

What most "moderate" conservatives don't realize, is how the left has eroded our foundation. Because they don't personally have strong religious faith, it has become easy for them to distance themselves from today's 'social conservative' and proclaim they are not a part of that.

Oh, they believe in fiscal conservatism, they just don't go along with the 'religious right' on their issues... but, it is those issues which define what Conservatism is all about.

No worries Dixie! Don’t stress about it. Virtually everyone I’ve ever run across on message board who self-identifies as a stanch “fiscal conservative” (meaning in reality, they support huge war and defense spending, but not social spending) and yet poses or presents themselves as a social liberal, is going to vote Republican 99% of the time regardless. Because even if they claim to be socially liberal, pro-marijuana, or whatever, when it comes to stepping into the voting booth and voting their priorities they’re always going to vote to keep taxes low on the rich, and to keep the war machine well funded and well oiled. Being pro-Gay marriage is just a catch phrase to ingratiate themselves with liberals. But, it will never be a top priority when stepping into the voting booth and voting their values.

These are the Bill O”Reilly moderate “independents” or “independent conservatives”. You’ll always have their vote dude. Hell, they would have voted for Bush a third time if it was constitutionally permissible, just to keep the Marxist Obama out of office.

What you need to worry about, is frightening the shit out of jewish-americans with your theocrats like Palin and Huckabee; alienating blacks with Reagan’s “welfare queen” jokes; and scaring the bejesus out of Hispanics with Fox New’s never-ending quest to frighten Americans about invasions of terrifying brown people. I don’t think, broadly speaking, jews, blacks, or Hispanics are necessarily lefty liberals on a whole range of issues. I would say most of them are fairly middle of the road if you look at the whole range of social and economic issues. You just happen to have lost their votes and confidence for a generation with your xenophobia and your reactionary theocratic candidates and rhetoric.


But personally, I would be way into it if you and your party nominated Palin and Huckabee in 2012. That would rule!
 
SMY, it doesn't matter who's warcry it is if it's true. It's a logical fallacy to argue simply by appealing to consequences, or by associating an argument with something you think that readers of your statement don't like. If natural rights do not exist, they do not exist, and that is that.

But a high degree of individual rights and freedoms doesn't need to appeal to nature. It's just what people want. And they deserve it.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
And just what the hell are conservatives "conserving" anyway? ...

The Constitution.

Really? Because the Patriot Act didn't exactly shore it up, now did it bunky? And it was with the GOP spearhead and the panicky acquiesence of the Dems....with BOTH sides admitting they didn't even read most of the damned thing.

And then there were these gems from the Shrub's legal eagle Gonzales (before he was kicked to the curb):

"The Constitution does not say that every citizen has the right to habeas corpus."

"The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is"

Those are just samples showing that once again, you just don't know what the hell you're talking about. My original assessment stands.
 
Last edited:
Really? Because the Patriot Act didn't exactly shore it up, now did it bunky? And it was with the GOP spearhead and the panicky acquiesence of the Dems....with BOTH sides admitting they didn't even read most of the damned thing.

And then there were these gems from the Shrub's legal eagle Gonzales (before he was kicked to the curb):

"The Constitution does not say that every citizen has the right to habeas corpus."

"The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is"

Those are just samples showing that once again, you just don't know what the hell you're talking about. My original assessment stands.

Sounds like judicial activism. Ain;t that from librulism?
 
Back
Top