Conservative identification question

[Iceweasel]

I'm pretty sure "Hissy fit" has no legal foundation.

I'm pretty sure you picked a good name for your toddler self.

 

[nuhuh]

Hey, fatty foreskin, you brought up denial in post #125 The law of the land has been decided. Your efforts to make it something besides decided law are wasted, it's done, it's over, you're in denial of that.

 

[MarathonMike]

I registered Independent at 18 and have voted DEM, IND and GOP. When Democrats veered so far away from what I consider core American values, I "self identified" as Conservative. I agree with the Tea Party platform of smaller government and border control but don't pay much attention otherwise.

 

[Iceweasel]

Hey, fatty foreskin, you brought up denial in post #125 The law of the land has been decided. Your efforts to make it something besides decided law are wasted, it's done, it's over, you're in denial of that.

No Smegma, I said "I didn't say obama put him on the bench. Try to focus on the actual words. Not all judges agreed with him and sided more to my point of view. You can live in denial if you want, it's your loss."

...since you wanted to pretend there was no authoritative objection to gay marriage. I agreed with the dissenters and you considered that I was in denial. That doesn't begin to make sense.

 

[nuhuh]

I registered Independent at 18 and have voted Ind, Dem and Republican. When Republicans veered away from small government, fiscally responsible values I sided with Dems who brought a more robust economy. I disagree with any platform that merely makes promises, I have seen too much of that. When someone walks like they talk, I will pay attention and vote accordingly.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Just curious. Of the conservatives here:

Who considers themselves a Republican, and who considers themselves a Tea Partier?

Thinking back, I see a lot of posts defending the Tea Party but I don't remember seeing anyone actually say they are Tea Partiers.

Yes, I realize that the Tea Party is not an actual party. But do you think of yourself as one?
.

leftists feel a strong need to label others

so do many righties....

 

[nuhuh]

Hey, fatty foreskin, you brought up denial in post #125 The law of the land has been decided. Your efforts to make it something besides decided law are wasted, it's done, it's over, you're in denial of that.

No Smegma, I said "I didn't say obama put him on the bench. Try to focus on the actual words. Not all judges agreed with him and sided more to my point of view. You can live in denial if you want, it's your loss."

...since you wanted to pretend there was no authoritative objection to gay marriage. I agreed with the dissenters and you considered that I was in denial. That doesn't begin to make sense.

Frisky foreskin, who cares what those who disagreed said? It has no force of law, is not used in any legal argument and is a footnote of history. Your point of view is cross eyed.

 

[Harry Dresden]

"Who considers themselves a Republican, and who considers themselves a Tea Partier?"

Moot.

They''re one in the same.

can you tell us why jones?........

 

[Harry Dresden]

Most on the right can't even agree on what a 'conservative' is.

how so jones?....

 

[Ravi]

Race realist is the popular new name for cons.

 

[Bfgrn]

Hayek was defining Relativism in the GOP, OKA: Progressives. We've come sufficiently far down the road to have witnessed the fruits of Progressivism, with regard to the rationalization that such stands upon, in both political parties and we've come to find that it bears the same fruit.

"Conservatives" are those who seek to CONSERVE the principles of the founding and who REJECT the subjective braying of the Left... on BOTH SIDES of The Aisle.

LOL...you can't be serious?

Hayek perfectly describes today's right and especially the tea party who so proudly refuse to compromise.


When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them. I have little doubt that some of my conservative friends will be shocked by what they will regard as "concessions" to modern views that I have made in Part III of this book. But, though I may dislike some of the measures concerned as much as they do and might vote against them, I know of no general principles to which I could appeal to persuade those of a different view that those measures are not permissible in the general kind of society which we both desire. To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

Hayek-Why I am Not a Conservative

What is the biggest "different end" you would "allow" conservatives to pursue without attempting to destroy them?

Pursue whatever you wish, just don't try to portray it as anything other than what it is...

 

[Correll]

Hayek was defining Relativism in the GOP, OKA: Progressives. We've come sufficiently far down the road to have witnessed the fruits of Progressivism, with regard to the rationalization that such stands upon, in both political parties and we've come to find that it bears the same fruit.

"Conservatives" are those who seek to CONSERVE the principles of the founding and who REJECT the subjective braying of the Left... on BOTH SIDES of The Aisle.

LOL...you can't be serious?

Hayek perfectly describes today's right and especially the tea party who so proudly refuse to compromise.


When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them. I have little doubt that some of my conservative friends will be shocked by what they will regard as "concessions" to modern views that I have made in Part III of this book. But, though I may dislike some of the measures concerned as much as they do and might vote against them, I know of no general principles to which I could appeal to persuade those of a different view that those measures are not permissible in the general kind of society which we both desire. To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

Hayek-Why I am Not a Conservative

What is the biggest "different end" you would "allow" conservatives to pursue without attempting to destroy them?

Pursue whatever you wish, just don't try to portray it as anything other than what it is...

Your post stated that libs are committed to a "a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends."


I just asked for a nice big example.

Soooooooo?

 

[paulitician]

I can't pledge allegiance to any Party. I gave up on that a long time ago. 'Party before Country' folks are part of the problem, not the solution. Those who are loyal to Parties, tend to be programmed cult followers. They worship and approve all misdeeds in the name of protecting the Party's interests.

But of course the followers don't see themselves that way. They truly believe they're independent-minded people. In the end they become corrupt. It's best to be completely Independent and think for yourself.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... Rather, today in order to be considered a true Republican, one must be a homophobe ... .

A classic demonstration of "THE PROBLEM".

Understand... THERE IS NO SUCH THING as a "Homophobe". The word is a fiction, created from whole cloth to represent a boogy-man. It says: "You are against US and we're innocent and good". It's the same thing as old Robespierre's "Reactionary". Which ironically, was created IN REACTION to the contest of Robespierre's desire to kill off the productive engine of his nation, in the name of 'fairness', which in another ironic twist was entirely UNFAIR!

Two things: First you're not innocent.

Second: You're not good.

What you are is a deceiver; you're a degenerate that seeks to dismiss the degenerative traits that make you what you are. And there's no place in a viable culture for such people to have a place in public policy.

And it is truly no more complex, than that.

First understand this: I am a happy straight man. I am not Gay. I am an American citizen who recognizes blatant hatred and fear and discrimination when I see it.

I further recognize that homosexuals are, by in large, responsible, sober, tax paying American citizens. They are business owners, home owners, active in community organizations, active in churches and schools and our military. They are, by in large, no more lewd, lascivious or outrageous in their civic comportment than heterosexuals.

The LGBT community poses no threat, physically or culturally to our society than their counterparts in the heterosexual community.

Because their lifestyle is different from yours and mine is no reason to discriminate against them.

To discriminate against any American citizen without just cause is shameful and wholly unAmerican.

I don't give a red rat's ass what you are... but having read your would-be 'contributions' here for some time, I can tell you what you are NOT and you are NOT an American. That you're a Citizen of the US is as irrelevant as it is meaningless; it buys you nothing.

Homosexuals are sexual deviants, suffering from mental disorder. That you feel that they're sober, is hysterical, given that drug abuse, alcoholism and suicide are RAMPANT among their cult, with such being nearly synonymous with such. That they pay their taxes is laughable, given their absence of a choice and that they're citizens is as irrelevant for them as it is for you... and finally, that they're 'just like everyone else' is nonsense, because what they are is sexual deviants, degenerates who lack sound character and as noted above suffer mental disorder. But ... if it makes ya feel any better, it's the same mental disorder you suffer.

No one 'fears' them, thus there is no such thing as a homophobe. The word is as meaningless as any other word the Left gloms on to... such a 'reactionary, racist, HATE! and of course the ubiquitous: gay.

The word is a rhetorical foil designed to quell the contest which seeks to merely note the mental disorder that promotes the degenerate traits common to the Left on the whole and their sacred cows of the sexual deviancy cult. It serves no other purpose, bears no meaning and is never used by reasonable, intelligent people.

As a consequence of the mental disorder that causes them to reject soundly reasoned moral standards, it is the duty of every free sovereign to use the mind God gave them and recognize the distinction that the homosexual represents; never allowing a homosexual to be alone with children or to take any position which sets them in a position of trust and authority over children and experience has proven the folly of doing so time and again, with rare exception.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Most on the right can't even agree on what a 'conservative' is.

A Conservative, OKA: An American... is one who recognizes, respects, defends and adheres to the principles that define America... and without exception, each knows what those principles are.

Which sets them distinct from the Anti-Americans of the Ideological Left, such as your lowly self.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage is a union of opposite genders in the bible...

Yes. Because God created the heavens and the earth and on the earth, he created humanity in two distinct genders. Each complimenting the other, specifically designed to join with the other, forming one sustainable body, from two.

And it is in THAT, that we KNOW that Nature defines Marriage as the Joining of One Man with One Woman. And it is in that, that the constitution limits the scope and power of government to preclude it from making decisions which set man against the laws of nature, preventing the government from infringing upon the means of the individual to exercise their respect for the Creator and the laws the Creator established which govern human behavior; such as the laws relevant to human physiology, which require that Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... the clerk in Kentucky is actually a veiled effort by conservatives to continue the fight against the right of same-sex couples to marry.

The Clerk in Kentucky is a DEMOCRAT. And there is no right to marry a person of one's own gender. There is only the obtuse pretense of such, which will not stand and will result in nothing short of catastrophe.

You see Reader, there is a reason that homosexuals have spent 99.99999999999~% of human civilization 'in the closet'. And that reason is NOT that whitey is trying to hold a girl down... it is because EVERY TIME THEY HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED... THEY WRECKED THE JOINT.

And THAT is because the root of Homosexuality; as with the root of all degeneracy, is MENTAL DISORDER. And with that comes BAD DECISIONS... and with that comes Chaos, Calamity and Catastrophe.

Contrary to popular, ignorant belief, this is not the first time that degeneracy has boiled up from the bottom of the pot, and it wont be the last, but this will end as it always has, in the destruction of the culture that embraced it.

Now... for those among the Intellectually Less Fortunate who will no doubt come to deny this, I simply challenge them to offer up a single example of any culture that has embraced degeneracy that remains in existence today and thrives.

Reader, you will find that NOT a SINGLE EXAMPLE will be forthcoming, because no such example exists.

 

[Bfgrn]

Your post stated that libs are committed to a "a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends."


I just asked for a nice big example.

Soooooooo?

I answered your question. I am not going to legitimize your agenda...

I have a hard time understanding people being so boastful of a philosophy based on FEAR...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage is a union of opposite genders in the bible, not the Constitution and since we are a secular nation, it is all the people that have the same right to dignity and respect.

Proving once again just how retarded the left really is. Marriage has always been male/female, and in all cultures, secular and religious alike.
It isn't a dignity and respect issue just because you are too stupid to understand simple things.

The Supreme Court of this country disagrees with you and has the full force and weight of the law of the land on their side. Your opinion means squat.

The Supreme Court does in fact disagree. But as is always the case where the Left challenges sound reason, their disagreement rests in an irrational treatise which bears no resemblance to so much as reality, let alone reason.

As a result, the Supreme Court's 'disagreement' is null and void and no American is bound to obey it, and is duty bound to reject it.

 

[MarcATL]

Part of the problem is the media and the left has made the Tea Party out to be something it isn't.

I'm glad to see you say that. I think that's what's happening: More people would say they're Tea Partiers but don't want to be identified as such because of the way they have been portrayed. No one on this thread so far has said that they are.
.

No one said they weren't either. I identify with them but don't have a card or such and never attended a rally. As mentioned, it's a movement, not an organization you officially join. You seem to be bypassing that particular detail.

No, I addressed that in the OP.

Then you realize the question was based on a false premise and not answerable for the most part. What answer were you fishing for?

I don't think it's an unreasonable question. People identify with groups.

As far as what I'm fishing for, I think the question has been answered more than once, above: Many conservatives identify with the Tea Party, but avoid saying so because they feel the movement has been negatively/inaccurately portrayed. And those were conservatives here who said that.
.

Who are the TPers in office that best represents the movement?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk