Conservative identification question

[Anathema]

Just curious. Of the conservatives here:

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

Neither. I do not identify as anything other than Conservative and neither Republicans nor the Tea Party sub-group meet my definition of Conservative so I do not associate with either group.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I see. Only you and your views can define reality.

ROFLMNAO! Now isn't that precious? A Relativist coming to suspend the right of one individual to recognize reality, while claiming their right to define the same!

(That's the mental disorder I spoke to earlier... they're quire literally: MAD! Crazier than a shit-house rat.)

 

[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.

But what is in the constitution and the very first BOR, is...
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitutionprohibits the making of any lawrespecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

Don't see anything in there about the right to dignity or to not be offended

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 recognized the principle of dignity.

LOL! And that is but ONE example of the profound idiocy upon which that drivel rests.

Run through the Ghettos of any Leftist population center and point out the 'dignity' to which the Democrat Slaves are exercising. (And I mean RUN... as if you walk, you're a dead man. And this without regard to what hue you happen to be reflecting.)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

She's not talking about 'judicial tyranny' ... She's talking about God. ...

Yes, she is speaking about God's law, which the SCOTUS does not have the authority to so much as challenge, let alone 'overturn'.

She is speaking to the judicial tyranny that seeks to reject God's law... . Therefore she is speaking to judicial tyranny.

 

[Oldstyle]

The only person living in denial is you. A majority opinion decided the case, there are no recounts on the Supreme Court, no five second rule and no coin toss. The right lost and now the only recourse is a Constitutional Amendment which has zero ability of ever passing three-fourths of the states. It's your loss.

I didn't say it wasn't made into law. How can I be denying anything? You either can't read or you are simply posting shit like it's a different conversation.

You are in denial because you are arguing from the point of view that you are correct. Judges that sided against gay marriage lost, they became dissenters of the court's opinion. Your point of view is history and is now a footnote.

With all due respect...someone's point of view doesn't become "history" simply because some judges sitting in a room in Washington decide that gay marriage should be allowed. That's not the way things work. I happen to agree with the decision on gay marriage but I'm cognizant of the fact that others don't and I respect their right to have that opinion. The Supreme Court ruling doesn't make me "correct" and them incorrect. It simply means that a majority of THIS Supreme Court sees things the same way I do. If the opposite were true then my opinion wouldn't be any more wrong than Iceweasel's is now.

 

[nuhuh]

The only person living in denial is you. A majority opinion decided the case, there are no recounts on the Supreme Court, no five second rule and no coin toss. The right lost and now the only recourse is a Constitutional Amendment which has zero ability of ever passing three-fourths of the states. It's your loss.

I didn't say it wasn't made into law. How can I be denying anything? You either can't read or you are simply posting shit like it's a different conversation.

You are in denial because you are arguing from the point of view that you are correct. Judges that sided against gay marriage lost, they became dissenters of the court's opinion. Your point of view is history and is now a footnote.

With all due respect...someone's point of view doesn't become "history" simply because some judges sitting in a room in Washington decide that gay marriage should be allowed. That's not the way things work. I happen to agree with the decision on gay marriage but I'm cognizant of the fact that others don't and I respect their right to have that opinion. The Supreme Court ruling doesn't make me "correct" and them incorrect. It simply means that a majority of THIS Supreme Court sees things the same way I do. If the opposite were true then my opinion wouldn't be any more wrong than Iceweasel's is now.

Alright, your point of view is well reasoned and I can demure to respectful reasoning. I only get obstinate when confronted with bully tactics.

 

[David_42]

I consider myself an ayn randian free market anarcho capitalist libertarian paleoconservative. Better believe it.

 

[Mac1958]

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

Oh, I'm not the one to ask about that. Surely there are some TP-approved office holders in Congress.

Cruz would be an example, right? Louis Gohmert?
.

 

[Mac1958]

Just curious. Of the conservatives here:

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

Neither. I do not identify as anything other than Conservative and neither Republicans nor the Tea Party sub-group meet my definition of Conservative so I do not associate with either group.

That's interesting. I'd think most conservatives would lean towards one or the other.
.

 

[Anathema]

That's interesting. I'd think most conservatives would lean towards one or the other.

No. I'm more of a Ghengis Khan type Conservative.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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 ...

You're embarrassing yourself.

There's NOTHING in Hayek's comment that in ANY WAY even remotely resembles Americans.

His comments do however PERFECTLY define the Progressives, without regard to political affiliation.

The GOP is LOADED with Progs and not a single one of them is an American, as:

THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS.​

And that is because Nature precludes the means for one to simultaneously adhere to both the Thesis and the Antithesis.

 

[eagle1462010]

Conservative................who agrees with most of the TEA Party principles.................Want the RINO'S mounted on a wall.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

"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?........

LOL! No... it cannot.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Conservative................who agrees with most of the TEA Party principles.................Want the RINO'S mounted on a wall.

The Tea Party Principles are American Principles... there are no Tea Party Principles which are NOT foundational American Principle.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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...

No, you didn't answer the question. And through your failure to do so, you conceded to their points.

But, I want you to know that I can see that you did the very best you could, such as it was.

 

[MarcATL]

Somethings never change...they just get worse...

"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
President Harry S. Truman - October 13, 1948


"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

"In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles..."
Friedrich August von Hayek-Why I am Not a Conservative

So true.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

 

[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.

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.

No one said the dissent was law, your argument deteriorated into nothingness. Poof.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The only person living in denial is you. A majority opinion decided the case, there are no recounts on the Supreme Court, no five second rule and no coin toss. The right lost and now the only recourse is a Constitutional Amendment which has zero ability of ever passing three-fourths of the states. It's your loss.

I didn't say it wasn't made into law. How can I be denying anything? You either can't read or you are simply posting shit like it's a different conversation.

You are in denial because you are arguing from the point of view that you are correct. Judges that sided against gay marriage lost, they became dissenters of the court's opinion. Your point of view is history and is now a footnote.

With all due respect...someone's point of view doesn't become "history" simply because some judges sitting in a room in Washington decide that gay marriage should be allowed. That's not the way things work. I happen to agree with the decision on gay marriage but I'm cognizant of the fact that others don't and I respect their right to have that opinion. The Supreme Court ruling doesn't make me "correct" and them incorrect. It simply means that a majority of THIS Supreme Court sees things the same way I do. If the opposite were true then my opinion wouldn't be any more wrong than Iceweasel's is now.

What specifically do you agree with, in regards to the decision of the newly formed Supreme Legislature?

Cite the specific texts of the written decision with which you agree, or concede by defaul through your failure to do so.

(Reader, I established that challenge specifically to demonstrate that the would-be 'Contributor' hasn't got the slightest idea what the decision was... it simply "FEELS" agreement with the general notion that sexual deviants have a right to marry one another... with absolutely NO MEANS to express what the right is, from where it comes or the responsibilities that the individual must bear to sustain the right.

So sit back and monitor this thread and enjoy as the would-be 'Contributor' fails miserably to sustain its 'opinion'.

 

[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.

No one said the dissent was law, your argument deteriorated into nothingness. Poof.

Blah, Blah, Blah. You still have nothing.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So true.

ROFLMNAO! There's nothing remotely true about any of it. But feel free to try and support it.

(Reader, it has no means to support any of it... watch and enjoy.)