Nosmo's dialogue

[norwegen]

Conservatism by definition resists change. Is it resistance for resistance's sake, or is it a more organic, ingrained response to change? Or is it all self interest in the cause of resistance?

One response suggests a certain intractability and lack of curiosity. Another of my inquiries suggests some immutable characteristic. But the last course of action betrays cynicism and empowering in the face of change.

One can be excused, the second must be tolerated, but the third seems sinister and duplicitous.

Conservatives resist change in government. That is all. How ironic that lefties say conservatives resist change, then lambast them for ever changing economic dynamics, the environment, etc.

Conservatism is distinguished not so much by degrees or natures of change, but by where it would place supreme authority. Not in a person or group of persons. Not in a monarchy, oligarchy, or democracy. But in a Constitution.

 

[Peach]

I agree, the few extremists have no voice in the Republican party...........except for VP selection.

And yet the far left continues to show they know nothing beyond their programmed talking points and propaganda.

That's odd. It seems that is precisely what we on the Left think of bumper sticker Conservative thinking.

There isn't much consistency in the Conservative argument when children are rejected and the position is bolstered by Christian zeal.

PSEUDO Christian zeal, actually.

 

[The Rabbi]

Conservatives provided the resistance to Civil Rights, Women's equality, environmental safeguards, collective bargaining rights, LGBT equality, aid to senior citizens, the indigent and infirmed. Quite a record.

Meanwhile, Conservatives championed Joe McCarthy, George Wallace, Bush/Cheney and Michelle Bachmann. Hardly a list of folks advocating freedom for all citizens.

Republicans championed civil rights. Nixon originated the EPA. I dont know WTF you're talking about with aid to senior citizens (like Bush's prescription drug benefit), indigent and infirm.
Wallace was a progressive Democrat. Bush was a big government Rockefeller Republican. And who gives a shit about Michelle bachmann?
It isnt that you know nothing. It's that everything you know is wrong.

Once again I see you are hiding behind the flimsyskirts of party identity and running away from political ideology. Do you expect us to believe that George Wallace was a tree hugging, big government, Birkenstock wearing Progressive? He was an arch Conservative! As were the other Democrat Conservative bigots who advocated state's rights and segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.

Your knowledge of history and politics is so shallow that truth won't float in it.

We can add George Wallace's political views and acts to the vast list of things you know nothing about. Wallace was a progressive. Look it up.
In Wallace's last campaign for governor he won the majority of the black vote.

 

[The Rabbi]

Conservatism by definition resists change. Is it resistance for resistance's sake, or is it a more organic, ingrained response to change? Or is it all self interest in the cause of resistance?

One response suggests a certain intractability and lack of curiosity. Another of my inquiries suggests some immutable characteristic. But the last course of action betrays cynicism and empowering in the face of change.

One can be excused, the second must be tolerated, but the third seems sinister and duplicitous.

More bullshit.
Liberalism is limited government and laissez faire economics. That is the definition of liberalism. Do you see Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid pushing for those things? No. Today's conservatives are. I realize these concepts are difficult for you. Which is why you are getting your ass kicked once more in your own thread.