Real talk, I wish there were more "serious" conservative posters here

[ExodusNirvana]

ok what are those then? Taxes? gays? Abortion? Welfare? Guns?

That's what I'm trying to get down to.

Peeps can't get mad when the GOP in it's current form claims to represent conservatism, entertains the notions and tomfoolery of people like Rush, entities like FoxNews and puts Mitt Romney as their Presidential candidate.

But we need to find out exactly, clear cut what conservative ideology is. I mean otherwise why denote things with classifications and such? Don't call yourself a conservative then.

Call yourself something else that represents the sum of your ideals.

Because as it stand in America in 2012...Rush, FoxNews, Romney, etc.? That's the representation of conservatism.

So let's define it...TODAY....NOW...let today be the day we change up HL so that the "conservatives", if they are being unfairly shat upon, can regain some dignity.

But best believe....UNDERSTAND THIS...MANY conservatives on this board have gone on record saying they will vote for Mitt Romney. And a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for the GOP because he is who they've chosen to represent their party in the upcoming elections..

And a vote for the GOP is a vote for...well...

 

[daze23]

I disagree. There are concrete, recognizable attributes of conservative ideology past and present.

If you do not agree with those ideals, then you're NOT conservative, you're something else either liberal or moderate/centrist.

I think this is part of a bigger issue with trying to pigeon hole people. a lot of has to do with how our brain likes to make connections and categorize things. but we need to recognize that will often lead to incorrect assumtions

 

[Brown_Pride]

That's what I'm trying to get down to.

Peeps can't get mad when the GOP in it's current form claims to represent conservatism, entertains the notions and tomfoolery of people like Rush, entities like FoxNews and puts Mitt Romney as their Presidential candidate.

But we need to find out exactly, clear cut what conservative ideology is. I mean otherwise why denote things with classifications and such? Don't call yourself a conservative then.

Call yourself something else that represents the sum of your ideals.

Because as it stand in America in 2012...Rush, FoxNews, Romney, etc.? That's the representation of conservatism.

So let's define it...TODAY....NOW...let today be the day we change up HL so that the "conservatives", if they are being unfairly shat upon, can regain some dignity.

But best believe....UNDERSTAND THIS...MANY conservatives on this board have gone on record saying they will vote for Mitt Romney. And a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for the GOP because he is who they've chosen to represent their party in the upcoming elections..

And a vote for the GOP is a vote for...well...

you know where this ends right?
EVERYONE being an "independent". Which, to my point, we should really learn to take people for who they are. I'm pro religion but anti abortion, I know people who are anti abortion and atheists, I know some "conservatives" who, outside of being told they are conservative, are decidedly NOT conservative when you talk to them but because of ONE, literally ONE, issue they vote a certain way THINKING that is the best route.

My point is these classifications are both BS and being painted with an extremely large brush.

I guess if we're going to "define" what it means to be conservative then we need to do the same thing with "liberal" too.

 

[No1]

1. Modern Conservatism in the US...because as I understand it, conservatism here is different from the rest of the world.

2. The GOP is the GOP. I mean what are the official stances of the party. A few bad eggs don't ruin the bunch, but a few speckled eggs don't mean that they are different either.

All right, I'm here for a second. So here's the thing, as I believe I said earlier in this thread, "conservatives" and "liberals" are broad labels because people are not rigid in their stances. For example, take the healthcare debate individual pieces of it are more popular than the bill as a whole. But you would be led to believe that there is coherent conservative mass entirely against the idea of "socialized medicine."

I could go on the Republican website and give you the party platform. I could take the stances of the Speaker of the House or the Senate Minority leader or even Romney or Ryan, but that simply will not fully encompass the views in its entirety of the vast majority of people that label themselves conservatives. Some people label themselves conservative and are registered Republican but vote Democrat. Case in point: West Virginia, they'll vote for Democratic Senators but always a Republican president.

So for me to define American conservatism, I would have to fall-back on things such as "less government regulation" "free markets" "free trade" "right to choose", etc. But is that really American conservatism and does the GOP really represent a coherent ideology? No. It doesn't and it hasn't since Reagan. But people do have individual beliefs that are closer to the traditionally conservative way of seeing things in the sense of those who believe things like "color blindness" and that we should not try to relitigate the past. You can see those debates carried out in the courts. It the notion that society functions best when the government governs the least--it is not something I endorse. I've said before that I'm basically a Rawlsian, and was shaped in undergrad by Rawlsian philosophy professors. So it's not like I'm some right-winger here talking. You all know that.

So I would think I would get the benefit of the doubt in what I was saying, but you all were so eager to prove me right. You all quickly "defined conservatives" and dapped each other about how you should ignore them and ignored the greater point. I made it in my first post (I think), if you create the definition of conservatism in the way many of you did in here (and I said this in my first post) then you put people in a position where they begin at a starting point of defending that entire form of logic. That was my issue, that and people's rhetoric. Where people may have certain conservative ideals and be liberal in other places. Maybe, I wasn't clear. I don't know if I'm rambling right now in between class.

I can no better define the totality of American conservatism then I can liberalism. All these vague labels mean nothing. What means something is how people who claim to adhere to such persuasions act in practice and how they craft policy, how they perceive the country and its circumstances. When I said I had friends that body some of the logic in here--I was referring to my friends on the Hill working in those offices and watching how policy is made. The fact that you started off by referencing things from the 1940s is my point. I'll say it again, "You guys come to the debate guns loaded", and in that way, you are incapable of changing the minds of people who are "conservative" on certain issues or actually drawing out their reasoning. Do not mistake that for me defending those guys who are basically klansmen hiding behind "conservative values." There are far too many of those, and they too lost to the better argument during the CRM.

@ExodusNirvana.[/FONT]

 

[ExodusNirvana]

you know where this ends right?
EVERYONE being an "independent". Which, to my point, we should really learn to take people for who they are. I'm pro religion but anti abortion, I know people who are anti abortion and atheists, I know some "conservatives" who, outside of being told they are conservative, are decidedly NOT conservative when you talk to them but because of ONE, literally ONE, issue they vote a certain way THINKING that is the best route.

My point is these classifications are both BS and being painted with an extremely large brush.

I guess if we're going to "define" what it means to be conservative then we need to do the same thing with "liberal" too.

We should definitely do that. Definitely.

Otherwise what exactly is this thread about? What's the real issue?

 

[Brown_Pride]

We should definitely do that. Definitely.

kick it off brother Exodus.

A true liberal is...

A true conservative is...

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

DO[/B][/U] KNOW the stances of most people. Hell Bar, you flat out said you ain't even read VVD's comment at one point because you already knew...i'm not faulting you because i think we all do that.

In this thread, Barnone is just being a bytch, plain and simple. He came at me like 3 or 4 times in succession and he as distorted my argument. He claimed I was equating conservatism to card-carrying Republicans when really I was inquiring into what conservatism really means in 2012, and suggesting it should be redefined. I wasn't shytting on converatism as a general ideology. I was shytting on what has been billed as conservatism for the past decades by the GOP, Fox, talk radio, etc. He wouldn't respond and kept going on about how Friedmanite Larry Summers was Obama's top advisor even though I said myself the Dems, who I vote for are the more fiscally conservative of the two parties.

He just ignored my factual, well-reasoned rebuttals and said "I DIDN'T READ THEM YOU CAN'T OUT-DEBATE ME!" like a 10 year old. And stunningly this is all in a thread where he's preaching proper and civil debating etiquette.

Unbelievable. What a hypocrite and a coward. Drive-by swipes followed by ignoring of rebuttals, delusional chest-beating, and personal attacks is conduct unbecoming of a HL mod. This a$$hole needs to step down. We need some laidback fair person who isn't an ornery, pretentious, hyper-sensitive jerk like The Real or Sly as our mod.

After this childish bytch-fit I just witnessed, I'm starting to see the point of y'alls "freedom alliance."

 

[ExodusNirvana]

kick it off brother Exodus.

A true liberal is...

A true conservative is...

Aye man that's what I myself am trying to figure out. Cause if my earlier assertions are off base then my 2nd post needs to be answered first if only for the sake of civilized debate. I can admit when I'm wrong, that's why I asked cause I want to be clear on the shyt myself.

Threadstarter called for more "serious" conservatives and early posts implied that HL is largely liberal and that any attempt at civil debate is shot down with attacks on conservatism and conservatives.

If my ideas are wrong and the GOP and its representatives don't represent conservatism then by all means I'll fall back. But if that truly is what conservatism is then dudes are gonna have to accept that or take control of their party and truly make it representative of the ideology.

Is'nt that democracy? Is'nt that how our system works? Parties and political organizations that represent the will of groups of people?

 

[daze23]

I'm pro religion but anti abortion

did you mean "pro choice"?

 

[Brown_Pride]

In this thread, Barnone is just being a bytch, plain and simple. He came at me like 3 or 4 times in succession and he as distorted my argument. He claimed I was equating conservatism to card-carrying Republicans when really I was inquiring into what conservatism really means in 2012, and suggesting it should be redefined. I wasn't shytting on converatism as a general ideology. I was shytting on what has been billed as conservatism for the past decades by the GOP, Fox, talk radio, etc. He wouldn't respond and kept going on about how Friedmanite Larry Summers was Obama's top advisor even though I said myself the Dems, who I vote for are the more fiscally conservative of the two parties.

He just ignored my factual, well-reasoned rebuttals and said "I DIDN'T READ THEM YOU CAN'T OUT-DEBATE ME!" like a 10 year old. And stunningly this is all in a thread where he's preaching proper and civil debating etiquette.

Unbelievable. What a hypocrite and a coward. Drive-by swipes followed by ignoring of rebuttals, delusional chest-beating, and personal attacks is conduct unbecoming of a HL mod. This a$$hole needs to step down. We need some laidback fair person who isn't an ornery, pretentious, hyper-sensitive jerk like The Real or Sly as our mod.

After this childish bytch-fit I just witnessed, I'm starting to see the point of y'alls "freedom alliance."

ok then dead the pissing match and get to helping figure wtf a conservative and liberal are...

Is'nt that democracy? Is'nt that how our system works? Parties and political organizations that represent the will of groups of people?

no actually. That's NOT what democracy is. parties aren't in the constitution.
conservative/liberal dem and republican are really just tools people have become accustomed to and now have somehow taken "government" hostage.

Like all great ideas humans have really fuked this "democracy" up by inserting their hubris and greed.

 

[Brown_Pride]

did you mean "pro choice"?

lol yes, that is what i meant.
a religious person being anti abortion really isn't breaking the mold now is it

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

ok then dead the pissing match and get to helping figure wtf a conservative and liberal are...

The onus is not on me to dead the "pissing match." It's not even a pissing match. Our douchebag mod needs to learn how to debate and stop contradicting the very premise of his initial post. I already attempted to engage with him reason and he basically said "I'm not going to read your posts or respond." This is 5 year old level behavior and intellectual cowardice coming from a guy hypocritically chiding people for lack of proper debating respect, civility, and decorum.

 

[Brown_Pride]

The onus is not on me to dead the "pissing match." It's not even a pissing match. Our douchebag mod needs to learn how to debate and stop contradicting the very premise of his initial post. I already attempted to engage with him reason and he basically said "I'm not going to read your posts or respond." This is 5 year old level behavior and intellectual cowardice coming from a guy hypocritically chiding people for lack of proper debating respect, civility, and decorum.

I guess i'll just say the Onus, as you put it, should rest with the bigger man. You two can figure out which of you that is.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

I guess i'll just say the Onus, as you put it, should rest with the bigger man. You two can figure out which of you that is.

The bigger man has already been proven. Read the thread. He challenged me multiple times. I responded multiple times with civility and reason. He said "I'm not gonna read your posts or talk to you" plus some insults. fukk am I supposed to do? It's like talking to an angry 6 year old. I can't beat him or put him on timeout.

 

[ExodusNirvana]

VVD...help me out. What is classic and modern conservatism and what are the stances of the GOP? Is the GOP one of those or neither?

If we can answer that then maybe HL can go in the direction that OP, BarNone and other posters seem to want it to go.