The Christian Metal Realm is a community made up largely of Christians who also happen to love heavy metal! You do not have to be a Christian to join, but you MUST be respectful. Home  FAQ  Search  Register  Log in   The Christian Metal Realm :: Beliefs and Hobbies :: The Study and Debating Realm  Conservative , Liberal..ad infinitum...     Goto page :   1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6   Author Message 5minutes Joined : 07 Nov 2007 Posts : 2122 Subject: Re: Conservative , Liberal..ad infinitum...   Tue Mar 25, 2008 6:38 pm Sweet Zombie L. Ron Hubbard... 1. You have consistently been wrong on every single definition you have ever posted. Ever. Maybe you mean "in comparison to the personal beliefs of people like me, Valediction", but the reality is that you are absolutely clueless in regards to even the most basic aspects of political science, history, and constitutional law. 2. Apparently, most of the planet believes you're wrong. The list of right-leaning libertarians is quite long and filled with people who are of great political renown (aka "not you"). Since you're having trouble, let me explain it for you: American Conservativism: In the United States, conservatives tend to believe in fiscal conservativism, a strong military, and federalism. American Libertarianism: In the US, libertarians tend to believe in fiscal conservativism, personal liberty, and a strict interpretation of the constitution that ultimately results in a federalistic view of the relationship between the national and state governments Libertarian Conservatives general believe in fiscal conservative, limited government, and a strong, federal government. Quote: Meanwhile, the Libertarian views Liberty as something that is established in the Constitution, but they do not understand the need for a moral balance. For instance, the Libertarian believes that there are such things as "victimless crimes", even though this view holds absolutely no moral balance. Typically, Libertarians are in favor of the legalization of recreational/social drugs, pornography, prostitution, adultery, abortion, etc., etc., etc. But the problem is that such "liberties" end up trampling upon the liberties of others. And this is what makes them immoral. Thanks for telling me what I believe. Now let me tell you what I believe: I believe that the government has better things to do than to enforce the Victorian morals of a few religious nutballs who can't make people behave the way they want them to. So yeah, gambling, prostitution, and drugs should not be criminalized, IMO. Abortion affects other people and should not be legal, IMO. At the very least, R v. Wade is bad case law, and the matter should return to the states, per the 10th Amendment. Porn and adultery are not illegal in the US. Quote: And even in a "victimless crime" scenario, the fact remains that when you are dealing with moral issues... and whenever a moral precept has been broken, God is the victim. God is a factor of the Christian faith, not of American government. Quote: The idea of a "victimless crime" is therefore a figment of the imagination. Yep. You're clueless. _________________ www.christianmetalforums.com "There's no virtue in having an opinion, especially if it's wrong." - Rush Limbaugh "...remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it." - Barack Hussein Obama   exo Age : 32 Joined : 06 Apr 2007 Posts : 3266 Subject: Re: Conservative , Liberal..ad infinitum...   Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:00 pm VALEDICTION wrote: Quote: a libertarian conservative A contradiction of terms, I'm afraid. In America, a Libertarian is no more conservative than a Socialist, since both worldviews clearly lean away from the Constitution. With the Libertarians, it's just a matter of leaning "Right" as opposed to "Left". Libertarians believe in economy just the same as Jefferson Conservative, and this is certainly a good thing. I have no problem with their "economic conservatism". However, where the Libertarian fails is in his delineation of Liberty. The Conservative views Liberty as something that is both established and balanced in the Constitution. The balance is a moral balance. Meanwhile, the Libertarian views Liberty as something that is established in the Constitution, but they do not understand the need for a moral balance. For instance, the Libertarian believes that there are such things as "victimless crimes", even though this view holds absolutely no moral balance. Typically, Libertarians are in favor of the legalization of recreational/social drugs, pornography, prostitution, adultery, abortion, etc., etc., etc. But the problem is that such "liberties" end up trampling upon the liberties of others. And this is what makes them immoral. And even in a "victimless crime" scenario, the fact remains that when you are dealing with moral issues... and whenever a moral precept has been broken, God is the victim. The idea of a "victimless crime" is therefore a figment of the imagination. And the fact that Libertarians choose not acknowledge moral law does not change the fact that it exists. They may attempt to shield their eyes from it, and yet it does not go away. You see, whether we like it or not, God's law rules, just as the Christian Reconstructionists contend that it does. Joe Except that you totally looked past what he's saying by describing himself as such. Word order is important, and indicates that he's a conservative first and foremost. However, there are issues under the umbrella of conservativism that he disagrees with enough that he feels the need to modify the term conservative. So he adds the term that most fits the areas where his disagreement comes in, in order to diferentiate himself from those that are full on conservatives. His description means that he considers himself first and foremost , with some libertarian tendencies. What might seem contradictory upon cursory examination, becomes clear once he becomes expositional on exactly where his thoughts lie. Of course, when one is hellbent on pigeonholing and squeezing someone into one mold or the other, it's easy to look past the little details like that............... _________________   VALEDICTION Joined : 13 Apr 2007 Posts : 856 Subject: Re: Conservative , Liberal..ad infinitum...   Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:51 pm What is more important, a label, or the definition of that label? It would make absolutely no sense for me to call myself something that, by definition, I am not. Likewise, it makes no sense for someone to call himself a Libertarian who is not a Libertarian. And it makes no sense for someone to call himself a Conservative when he is not even the least bit familiar with the definition of this term. Case in point: John McCain. As for 5min, although he does not know it, he is simply a "Ron Paul Democrat, in denial". Joe   GODSWIZARD Play it LOUD!! Age : 51 Joined : 06 Jan 2007 Posts : 9290 Subject: Re: Conservative , Liberal..ad infinitum...   Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:44 pm Quote: As for 5min, although he does not know it, he is simply a "Ron Paul Democrat, in denial". I'm an Alaric the Visigoth, Visigoth, in denial. There are so few of my kind around anymore. _________________ "The 'farce' is strong with Obama-Wan." words of Scourge. One of the twins: I'm the one who likes it all....   exo Age : 32 Joined : 06 Apr 2007 Posts : 3266 Subject: Re: Conservative , Liberal..ad infinitum...   Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:46 pm VALEDICTION wrote: What is more important, a label, or the definition of that label? It would make absolutely no sense for me to call myself something that, by definition, I am not. Likewise, it makes no sense for someone to call himself a Libertarian who is not a Libertarian. And it makes no sense for someone to call himself a Conservative when he is not even the least bit familiar with the definition of this term. Case in point: John McCain. As for 5min, although he does not know it, he is simply a "Ron Paul Democrat, in denial". Joe Again, you are trying to force square pegs into round holes. He doesn't fall into EITHER camp that you keep trying to force him into, and thusly, your rigid interpretations of those camps are pretty much entirely irrelevant to the arguement. He KNOWS that he doesn't follow the accepted definition of the seperate terms. Hence the combination of them, to create new terminology defining HIS positions........... _________________   VALEDICTION Joined : 13 Apr 2007 Posts : 856 Subject: Re: Conservative , Liberal..ad infinitum...   Wed Mar 26, 2008 12:26 am Quote: Again, you are trying to force square pegs into round holes. He doesn't fall into EITHER camp that you keep trying to force him into, and thusly, your rigid interpretations of those camps are pretty much entirely irrelevant to the arguement. He KNOWS that he doesn't follow the accepted definition of the seperate terms. Hence the combination of them, to create new terminology defining HIS positions........... You can hold a liberal view, and so choose to convey that liberalism as a Libertarian (leaning to the "Right"). You can hold a liberal view, and so choose to convey that liberalism as a Socialist (leaning to the "Left"). But if you hold a conservative view, then by definition, you cannot be anything other than a Conservative. You cannot be both Conservative and Liberal. It's impossible. Even if you choose to adopt conservative principles into a Libertarian platform, you still end up holding a liberal view. If you are not a complete Conservative, then you really have no business calling yourself a Conservative. It is an improper use of the word. To consider ourselves somewhat Conservative, is to have our language backwards. You see, the only way to say this in English, and have it make sense, is to say that we are somewhat Liberal. You can be somewhat liberal, but you cannot be somewhat conservative. The English just doesn't work that way. If you have a view point that falls somewhere in between the Conservative view and the Libertarian view, and you wanted to avoid the word "liberal" (for obvious reasons), then you could also say that your views are "somewhat libertarian", and this would be an acceptable use of the language. As for the various degrees of liberalism, you are correct in saying that they are manifold. You could be an extreme Libertarian. You could be a mild Socialist. Etc. Etc. Joe Last edited by VALEDICTION on Wed Mar 26, 2008 12:40 am; edited 1 time in total   VALEDICTION Joined : 13 Apr 2007 Posts : 856 Subject: Re: Conservative , Liberal..ad infinitum...   Wed Mar 26, 2008 12:33 am Here are some excerpts taken from a speech that was given by John Brooks, the Governor of Massachusetts, way back on June 5, 1816. According to his observations, the two greatest conservatives of our republic are (1) the Constitution and (2) the moral virtue of our people. Remove one or the other, and our republic is doomed to collapse. You see, this is the Conservative viewpoint, and like it or not, it is a school of thought that has existed for over two hundred years, since the nation was founded. If you've been wondering what it really means to be a Conservative, here it is right here: Quote: The constitution has been in operation nearly thirty-seven years -- it commenced in the midst of the war of the revolution, under circumstances peculiarly trying to its infant strength, and has successfully resisted the shocks to which it has since, from a variety of causes, been exposed. To estimate the blessings derived to this people from our constitution, would be difficult -- we can scarcely point to any source of employment, that is not deduced from, or enriched by, its benign influence. . . . The constitution of the United States is without precedent and without parallel. . . . It is foreign to my intention, as it would be to the occasion, to attempt an analysis of the constitution. But such provisions of that instrument as are vitally important to the public happiness cannot be too frequently brought to view and impressed upon the public mind. A knowledge of the value of first principles ought to be cultivated. Avarice and ambition wage eternal war with equal rights and public liberty. This was the doctrine of our fathers, founded in the nature of man; it is the doctrine of the constitution, illustrated by the unequivocal testimony of experience. Virtue is the great conservative of republics; and coincident with the other profound views developed in the constitution, and as auxiliary to their attainment, that instrument assigns an elevated rank to moral and religious principles. The happiness of the people, the good order and preservation of civil government are declared essentially to depend on piety, religion and morality; and wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, are considered as necessary for the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people. Source Data: The Centinel of Freedom (Newark, NJ), July 09, 1816, Vol. XX, Iss. 43, pg. 2.   exo Age : 32 Joined : 06 Apr 2007 Posts : 3266 Subject: Re: Conservative , Liberal..ad infinitum...   Wed Mar 26, 2008 12:55 am Translated: "My narrow scope of perception does not allow me to comprehend the explanations I have been given." Quote: If you are not a complete Conservative, then you really have no business calling yourself a Conservative. It is an improper use of the word. To consider ourselves somewhat Conservative, is to have our language backwards. You see, the only way to say this in English, and have it make sense, it to say that we are somewhat Liberal. Quote: Here are some excerpts taken from a speech that was given by John Brooks, the Governor of Massachusetts, way back on June 5, 1816. Again, you are indeed very WRONG on this notion, as your very premise for the definitions of what the words mean in the modern political landscape remains flawed. What it used to mean 192 years ago, what it originally meant, or what you accept it to mean are not the only and unyielding definitions. Just because you are hell bent on using a more archaic definition doesn't invalidate the current one. That'd be why when you look words from the English language up in a dictionary, they very often have more than a single definition. That's the wonders of speaking a living, changing language, as opposed to a dead tongue. Additionally, that is NOT how he is describing himself. You STILL refuse to acknowledge that word order has importance, and apply the wrong portion of the phrase as the modifier. In English, we would say "blue pencil" to indicate the pencil is blue in color. In Spanish, we'd say "lapiz azul" (literally translated pencil blue). If you pay attention, you'd realize that, hey, we're typing and reading ENGLISH, and therefore the "libertarian" portion of the phrase is the modifier, indicating that the libertarian tendencies are of secondary importance, and that "conservative" (which is being defined under a set of modern circumstances you refuse to acknowledge) is the primary character of his political leanings. But hey, it's tough to get those English reading comprehension skills upt to snuff these days, isn't it? _________________   5minutes Joined : 07 Nov 2007 Posts : 2122 Subject: Re: Conservative , Liberal..ad infinitum...   Wed Mar 26, 2008 4:32 am VALEDICTION wrote: What is more important, a label, or the definition of that label? It would make absolutely no sense for me to call myself something that, by definition, I am not. Likewise, it makes no sense for someone to call himself a Libertarian who is not a Libertarian. And it makes no sense for someone to call himself a Conservative when he is not even the least bit familiar with the definition of this term. Case in point: John McCain. As for 5min, although he does not know it, he is simply a "Ron Paul Democrat, in denial". Joe I'd rather be a Ron Paul Democrat in Denial than Consistently Wrong. OK, genius, it's time for an education. 1. You are not the standard by which others political beliefs are judged. The political spectrum is not a 2-column list with column A being "Right" and having 2 entries (Valediction and Everyone Who Agrees With Valediction), and column B being "Wrong" with everyone else. Your mistake here is in you thinking that you are important, when in reality you have consistently shown a complete inability to grasp even the most basic 3rd-grade concepts of American political belief. 2. The reality is that even on the simple left-right axie, there are dozens of nuances that must be considered beyond "strict constructionism". Interpretation of the Constitution is a single element of the axis, but it is not the sole element. The constitution, for instance, is silent on elements such as capitalism, corporate welfare, employment issues, and personal morality. 3. When we actually look at the spectrum, we discover that there are indeed multiple axes by which to judge one. Economic liberalism vs. economic conservativism and personal liberty vs. authoritarianism. 4. From what I can tell bout you, your personal political belief, incidentally, runs closer to middle-right conservativism with strong authoritarian tendencies. This means that you think the government has the right to tell people how to behave in nearly every aspect of their lives (which sounds almost.... socialist, one could say...). 5. Being more libertarian that you means that I believe that people should be more responsible for their own lives than the government should be responsible for making them behave in a manner that lines up with my personal list o' morals. Just as a reminder, my score was this: http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=7.50&soc=0.31 So what's yours? Come on, Val. Show us how everything is about the strict constructionism! _________________ www.christianmetalforums.com "There's no virtue in having an opinion, especially if it's wrong." - Rush Limbaugh "...remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it." - Barack Hussein Obama   Snowy Owl Age : 31 Joined : 20 Jun 2007 Posts : 379 Subject: Re: Conservative , Liberal..ad infinitum...   Wed Mar 26, 2008 5:59 am DeathMetalCookieMonster wrote: Quote: I am a proud conservative in the mold of the Old Right...before the neocons ruined the movement. Matt, PLEASE stop using the term "neocon". It was a term that has been used for many, MANY years by libs who call anyone they disagree with "neocons". Heck, they use it and don't even know what it means. "Neo", meaning new or modern, and "conservative" meaning, well, conservative. However, THEY use it to instill "neo-nazi" in people's heads. I don't care if Pat Bukannan uses it, it still is a lib-created term that has no real meaning. Here is the origin of the term: As a term, neoconservative first was used derisively by democratic socialistMichael Harrington to identify a group of people (who described themselves as liberals) as newly stimulated conservative ex-liberals. The idea that liberalism "no longer knew what it was talking about" is neoconservatism's central theme. The term 'Neoconservative' was originally used as a criticism against liberals that had politically 'moved to the right'. Yes, and the libs stole it from us, so, I will not stop using the term because it is how I feel. Doesn't mean I like the term neo-nazi either. The proper meaning of neo-conservative is used to describe so-called conservatives who have transplanted liberal principles into conservative politics. With that said, I will not stop using the term. I'm not going to censor myself just to make people feel better. The type of conservative I am (in most cases, not all) is this: Paleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleo or paleocon when the context is clear) is a term for an anti-communist and anti-authoritarian[1]right wing movement based in the United States, Germany, England, and elsewhere, that stresses tradition, civil society and classical federalism, along with familial, religious, regional, national and Western identity.[2] Chilton Williamson, Jr. describes paleoconservatism as "the expression of rootedness: a sense of place and of history, a sense of self derived from forebears, kin, and culture — an identity that is both collective and personal.”[3] Paleoconservativism is not expressed as an ideology and its adherents do not necessarily subscribe to any one party line. _________________ News for real conservatives-The American Conservative magazine. www.amconmag.com I proudly lead the Catholic conservative metalhead revolution!   Snowy Owl Age : 31 Joined : 20 Jun 2007 Posts : 379 Subject: Re: Conservative , Liberal..ad infinitum...   Wed Mar 26, 2008 6:30 am 5minutes wrote: I'm a libertarian conservative who's more fiscally conservative than anyone else on this board, and I think Snowy and the Constitution Party Crusade Crew are loopy. Not exactly the "neo-con" of his dreams. Good for you sir. I also want you to explain to me, why you, a libertarian conservative, are planning on voting for the least conservative Republican candidate since Nelson Rockefeller? I want you to tell me why you are voting for a man who has flirted with joining the Democratic party? Why are you voting for a man that is closer to Lincoln Chafee instead of being closer to Calvin Coolidge? I also want you to clearly explain why you think I am a whacko. Is it because I am not feasting on the bullcrap the Republican Party is serving anymore? Is it because us "whackos" will tip the election to Hillary/Obama? If anyone is an authoritarian it is YOU! You obivously do not give a rats rear end for the grass roots movement. I know many a good man and many close friends who are voting for McCain because they feel he is the best. That is awesome. You, however, obivously do not feel he is the best. But, hey, we gotta beat Hillary...that's all that matters. To heck with principles! Let's sell our souls to the devil to beat the superdevil. Et tu, neocon? I'm going to keep using that word! Neocon! Neocon! Like I said earlier I am not going to stop using a term just because it offends some people. _________________ News for real conservatives-The American Conservative magazine. www.amconmag.com I proudly lead the Catholic conservative metalhead revolution! Last edited by Snowy Owl on Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:21 am; edited 1 time in total   VALEDICTION Joined : 13 Apr 2007 Posts : 856 Subject: Re: Conservative , Liberal..ad infinitum...   Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:16 am Quote: Show us how everything is about the strict constructionism! Well, first of all, I appreciate your interest. For starters, I would recommend the following authors. Everything I have ever read by these guys has pretty much been spot on: Kevin L. Clauson -- his contributions on Christian politics. http://www.christ-college.edu/about/faculty.htm Gary DeMar -- his books and articles on Constitutional Government. http://www.americanvision.org/ E. Calvin Beisner -- his books and articles on Economics, in relation to Christian Compassion. http://www.ecalvinbeisner.com/ Ronald H. Nash -- his books and articles on Free-Enterprise. http://www.biblicaltraining.org/index.php?page=speakers&id=12 Robert H. Bork -- his books and articles on Judicial Tyranny. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slouching_Towards_Gomorrah -- Wikipedia appears to have a relatively decent article on the subject of Christian Reconstructionism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Reconstructionism -- As a primer on the subject of morality and politics, I would also point you to the following article by Gary DeMar: Theocracy: An Inescapable Concept By Gary DeMar http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/12-03-04.asp Leftist pundits continue to raise fears about a Taliban-type Christian theocracy. The evangelical and moral vote scared the daylights out of a cabal of frenzied popping jays who have had a near monopoly on the flow of editorial comment over the last 20 years. There's even a "theocracy watch" website for those who care about such things. Maureen Dowd, Garry Wills, Bill Moyers, and Gary Hart have used the "T" word to scare the bejabbers out of ignorant voters. Dowd is one of the worst of the irrational offenders. She wrote that the Bush administration is about "replacing science with religion, and facts with faith. We’re entering another dark age," she writes, "more creationist than cutting edge." Liberal columnist E. R. Shipp is equally disturbed when he writes that conservatives want a "Christian Jihad." Village Voice declared that Bush had a "mandate for theocracy." And where do these theocrats live? In a place derisively called "Jesusland." The people at www.Jesusland.com have even come up with what they describe as a "crypto-fascist theocracy" national anthem called the "Star Spangled Bible." Read it, and then ask who are the real fascists. Theocracy is an inescapable concept. The rejection of one theocratic government leads to the choice of another theocratic government. Even democracy is theocratic. Have you not heard the phrase vox populi, vox dei? "The voice of the people is the voice of god." Francis Schaeffer described democracy as "the tyranny of the 51%." In a pure democracy, whatever the majority says is right becomes the law for that moment in time. Libertarianism is theocratic. Each and every individual is a god unto himself. I’ve heard the claim that libertarians believe people can do what they want as long as what they do does not hurt other people. Who says? What is the origin of this ethical standard? Arthur Leff, writing for the Duke Law Journal (December 1979) [ http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/www.id.ucsb.edu/fscf/LIBRARY/JOHNSON/nihilism.html ] , believed that napalming babies is bad; starving the poor is wicked; and buying and selling each other is depraved. But he could not say why. If there is no God, then who says that hurting people is a bad thing? Maybe it’s really good, but we just don’t know it. Libertarianism hangs by a moral thread. This "do unto others as they would do unto you" ethic is borrowed from the Christian worldview. If Christianity were ever displaced, libertarians would tear each other apart with a smile. The Supreme Court is theocratic. Five justices decide life and death issues without any reference to a law higher than the prerogatives of the court. The seven justices who made abortion legal in the United States have the blood of tens of millions of preborn babies on their hands. They were and are a law unto themselves. Liberals don’t see the theocratic nature of the Court because they have generally agreed with its decisions. Secularism is theocratic. In California, a fifth-grade teacher has been prohibited by school authorities from giving students documents from American history that mention God. This includes the Declaration of Independence. I suspect the Constitution would have to be included as well since it states that it was drafted in 1797 "in the year of our Lord." For the religiously impaired, "Lord" is a reference to the Lord Jesus Christ. Here we see religion—the secular religion of humanism—being forced down the throats of captive students. We just learned from the Attorney General’s office of California that schools cannot inform parents if their children leave campus to receive certain confidential medical services that include abortion, AIDS treatment, and psychological analysis. The key word here is "cannot." This is the modern version of theocracy in action. Christianity is viewed as a rival theocracy by liberal theocrats. That’s why these guys are so angry at the prospect that Christians might have a moral and cultural voice in society. They have a worthy opposition that sees through the facade of secular neutrality and objectivity. Secularism, in the name of reason and progress, has a bloody history. As Alister McGrath writes in The Twilight of Atheism, "The reality of the situation is bloody, messy and brutal. The eradication of faith tends to involve firing squads and gas chambers." The world suffers under the supposed rational faith of atheism. Since atheism is said to be rational, there cannot be an appeal to an outside authority. What’s rational is defined by those in power. So if those in power declare that it’s rational to exterminate people, then there is nothing wrong with it. McGrath continues: "It is only fair to point out that those who planned the Holocaust, and those who slammed shut the doors of the Auschwitz gas chambers, were human beings–precisely those whom Ludwig Feurerbach declared to be the new "gods" of the modern era, free from any divine prohibitions or sanctions, or any fear of future divine judgment." If you would like to see the cold rationalism of a secular theocracy in action, I urge you to view Conspiracy [ http://hem.passagen.se/lmw/conspiracy2.html ] a real-time enactment of the Nazi plan to eradicate the Jews. The horror is in knowing that it really happened. So then, when Maureen Dowd and her anti-theocratic friends start pontificating over the horrors of a Christian theocracy, remind them of the bloody history of their own secular theocracy.   Ashenvale A Mere Peasant Age : 29 Joined : 08 Dec 2007 Posts : 2494 Subject: Re: Conservative , Liberal..ad infinitum...   Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:43 am Quit it with the propaganda already. Save it for the push-overs. jeezz. _________________ εν αρχη εποιησεν ο θεος τον ουρανον και την γην Death is the only way out.   Snowy Owl Age : 31 Joined : 20 Jun 2007 Posts : 379 Subject: Re: Conservative , Liberal..ad infinitum...   Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:47 am All good articles to point out, my friend. I would also like to point people to the bookstore, or amazon.com, where they can check out these books which woke up yours truly about how positions that so-called conservatives pushed for years are truly not conservative principles: Where The Right Went Wrong by Pat Buchanan. I also recommend The Death of the West and State of Emergency, also by Pat Buchanan. He is by far the most informative and educational source on true conservatism. Also, anyone who thinks the Constitutional Party is theocratic needs to look at this from their party platform: Article I of the Bill of Rights reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Our Constitution grants no authority to the federal government either to grant or deny the religious expressions of the people in any place. Both the First and Tenth Amendments forbid such tyranny. We call upon all branches of government to cease their attacks on the religious liberties of the people and the states, regardless of the forum in which these liberties are exercised. We assert that any form of taxation on churches and other religious organizations is a direct and dangerous step toward state control of the church. Such intrusion is prohibited by the Constitution and must be halted. We assert that private organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America, can determine their own membership, volunteers, and employment based on their oaths and creeds. I also reccomend the magazine The American Conservative www.amconmag.com _________________ News for real conservatives-The American Conservative magazine. www.amconmag.com I proudly lead the Catholic conservative metalhead revolution!   VALEDICTION Joined : 13 Apr 2007 Posts : 856 Subject: Re: Conservative , Liberal..ad infinitum...   Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:04 am Quote: If there's anyone on this board who considers themselves neither Conservative or Liberal.. who accepts and rejects ideologies based on his own logic and studied conclusions, and doesn't just follow the sheep of the red or blue farmers flock ..please raise your smiley's hand! This will probably just be me...but who knows. Just to clarify, are you referring to this propaganda, or something else?   exo Age : 32 Joined : 06 Apr 2007 Posts : 3266 Subject: Re: Conservative , Liberal..ad infinitum...   Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:29 am Quote: I also want you to explain to me, why you, a libertarian conservative, are planning on voting for the least conservative Republican candidate since Nelson Rockefeller? I want you to tell me why you are voting for a man who has flirted with joining the Democratic party? Why are you voting for a man that is closer to Lincoln Chafee instead of being closer to Calvin Coolidge? Because there are actually some of use that understand that change, if it is to come, will take time, and muct come from WITHIN the established system. We're not satisfied with trumpeting about and throwing our votes to candidates that claim to hold the moral high ground, abut in reality, ae inneffectual and unelctable. _________________   Snowy Owl Age : 31 Joined : 20 Jun 2007 Posts : 379 Subject: Re: Conservative , Liberal..ad infinitum...   Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:36 am exo wrote: Quote: I also want you to explain to me, why you, a libertarian conservative, are planning on voting for the least conservative Republican candidate since Nelson Rockefeller? I want you to tell me why you are voting for a man who has flirted with joining the Democratic party? Why are you voting for a man that is closer to Lincoln Chafee instead of being closer to Calvin Coolidge? Because there are actually some of use that understand that change, if it is to come, will take time, and muct come from WITHIN the established system. We're not satisfied with trumpeting about and throwing our votes to candidates that claim to hold the moral high ground, abut in reality, ae inneffectual and unelctable. The question was not for you, but thanks for answering anyway. If that's how you feel, then great. As for me, I feel the established system is garbage and that the candidates you say are unelectable are more electable than the sorry excuses for presidential candidates we get every time. But, thanks for your thoughts. _________________ News for real conservatives-The American Conservative magazine. www.amconmag.com I proudly lead the Catholic conservative metalhead revolution!   5minutes Joined : 07 Nov 2007 Posts : 2122 Subject: Re: Conservative , Liberal..ad infinitum...   Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:51 am Quote: I also want you to explain to me, why you, a libertarian conservative, are planning on voting for the least conservative Republican candidate since Nelson Rockefeller? I have no intention of voting for Gerald Ford. Oh... you must mean John McCain. Yeah. You want to know why I'm going to vote for him? It's simple. Math. 1. There are 2 parties with any hope of reasonably winning the Presidency: The GOP and the Democrat Party. 2. The Democrats have consistently fielded candidates that are bad for the country. Saving a sharp and sudden turn to the right, there is no way I could vote for a Democrat. 3. This means that I will vote Republican, at the very least, to keep Democrats out of office. 4. There are third parties. They are all loopy. Ergo, I cannot vote for them, no matter how they market themselves. Additionally, they attempt to take my vote away from the GOP, who has generally fielded decent to great candidates, thus ensuring that the Democrats are at least one vote more likely to win. This is not allowable. And no, I don't think McCain is anywhere close to Lincoln Chafee. You believe this because you are silly. According to the National Journal, on the "Liberal-Conservative Scale" that rates Senators from 0 (Communist) to 100 (Conservative), McCain rated a 59, around the same score as Voinovich, Lugar, Warner, and Hagel. Chafee rated a 41, which puts him in the same league as Webb, Salazar, and Lieberman. Hillary ranked a 17 near Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin. Obama ranked a 4 - bottom of the barrel with Joe Biden and Sheldon Whitehouse. In comparison, Ted Kennedy ranks a 23 and John Kerry ranks a 20. Does this mean I really like McCain? No. Is he a better option than Hillary and Obama? Yes. _________________ www.christianmetalforums.com "There's no virtue in having an opinion, especially if it's wrong." - Rush Limbaugh "...remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it." - Barack Hussein Obama   Snowy Owl Age : 31 Joined : 20 Jun 2007 Posts : 379 Subject: Re: Conservative , Liberal..ad infinitum...   Wed Mar 26, 2008 9:36 am 5minutes wrote: Quote: I also want you to explain to me, why you, a libertarian conservative, are planning on voting for the least conservative Republican candidate since Nelson Rockefeller? I have no intention of voting for Gerald Ford. Oh... you must mean John McCain. Yeah. You want to know why I'm going to vote for him? It's simple. Math. 1. There are 2 parties with any hope of reasonably winning the Presidency: The GOP and the Democrat Party. 2. The Democrats have consistently fielded candidates that are bad for the country. Saving a sharp and sudden turn to the right, there is no way I could vote for a Democrat. 3. This means that I will vote Republican, at the very least, to keep Democrats out of office. 4. There are third parties. They are all loopy. Ergo, I cannot vote for them, no matter how they market themselves. Additionally, they attempt to take my vote away from the GOP, who has generally fielded decent to great candidates, thus ensuring that the Democrats are at least one vote more likely to win. This is not allowable. And no, I don't think McCain is anywhere close to Lincoln Chafee. You believe this because you are silly. According to the National Journal, on the "Liberal-Conservative Scale" that rates Senators from 0 (Communist) to 100 (Conservative), McCain rated a 59, around the same score as Voinovich, Lugar, Warner, and Hagel. Chafee rated a 41, which puts him in the same league as Webb, Salazar, and Lieberman. Hillary ranked a 17 near Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin. Obama ranked a 4 - bottom of the barrel with Joe Biden and Sheldon Whitehouse. In comparison, Ted Kennedy ranks a 23 and John Kerry ranks a 20. Does this mean I really like McCain? No. Is he a better option than Hillary and Obama? Yes. *stands up and applauds* I think you ought to run for president. You'd get a few votes. Thank you for answering my questions in a clear and concise manner. Despite our differences I appreciate it, and while I may attack your political motives, I will not attack you personally. But you have given me one quote which proves my point and therefore thus ends our great exchange...here it is: I will vote Republican, at the very least, to keep Democrats out of office. And also... ... (the third parties) attempt to take my vote away from the GOP, who has generally fielded decent to great candidates (My note: I agree, and if they field a true conservative candidate I may vote Republican again someday), thus ensuring that the Democrats are at least one vote more likely to win. This is not allowable. I'll put you down in the Keep Hillary Out/Keep Democrats Out column. That is exactly the kind of voter I have been railing against...the ones that sacrifice principle for politics just to keep the other guy/gal out. That is voting for all the wrong reasons. That is why the grassroots is neutered. That is why the PA Legislature voted for a pay raise in 2005! Well, in '06 we voted out almost every single legislator who voted for that pay raise (most of whom were Republicans). People got smart that year and decided to vote for principle, not party, and throw the bums out who were stealing our money. Sure, in the House it led to a 1 seat majority for the Dems in PA, but things change. People voting party over principle will destroy our country slowly, over time. Why do we see Bush stumping for people like Linc Chafee? Repeat after me, kids...PARTY OVER PRINCIPLE! Will I, stand for politics run amok like this? As Patrick Henry said "Forbid it! Almighty God!" I cannot let the status quo stand. But you should be happy. McCain will win election easily. I might vote third party but I am also a realist. Hillary and Obama are tearing each other apart while McCain is staying above the fray. The entire GOP establishment is uniting behind McCain while the Dems are eaten away from within. The only people who are not uniting behind McCain are PO'd conservatives like me who feel McCain does not speak for them. So, without a doubt, he will win. So rest easy...the big bad liberal boogeyman under the bed will stay there for now. The moderate will win easily...and while conservatives like me will bellyache, we will also take heart that Hillary is not president. One day, however...we will rise! Woe to the liberals and neocons when that happens! That's my story. End of discussion. See ya later. You proved my point and that is all I needed from you. _________________ News for real conservatives-The American Conservative magazine. www.amconmag.com I proudly lead the Catholic conservative metalhead revolution!   5minutes Joined : 07 Nov 2007 Posts : 2122 Subject: Re: Conservative , Liberal..ad infinitum...   Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:08 am Quote: Theocracy: An Inescapable Concept And yet, we've escaped it for centuries... Quote: I'll put you down in the Keep Hillary Out/Keep Democrats Out column. That is exactly the kind of voter I have been railing against...the ones that sacrifice principle for politics just to keep the other guy/gal out. That is voting for all the wrong reasons. Thanks for your opinion. It sucks. It's not "voting for all the wrong reasons". If McCain were truly a bad candidate, I would not support him, either. But he's not a bad candidate. He's not as good as I'd prefer, but he's not bad. Not anywhere close, and in comparison to Hillbama, he's a freakin' Jesse Helms. Quote: That is why the grassroots is neutered. The reason the grassroots are neutered is because of democracy. There's actually very little interest in "grassroots" movements. The closest a grassroots candidate has come to having a successful run for the Presidency in recent memory has been Ross Perot, although Teddy Roosevelt actually came closer. Quote: That is why the PA Legislature voted for a pay raise in 2005! Well, in '06 we voted out almost every single legislator who voted for that pay raise (most of whom were Republicans). Same thing happened in NC. Sad thing is that most of the State Legislators and Senators make less than $20k a year for their service - in some cases, not even enough to keep a 1-bedroom apartment in Raleigh or pay for travel expenses. I'm actually in favor of paying our legislators much more than they are because I think they need it - and deserve it. Quote: . So rest easy...the big bad liberal boogeyman under the bed will stay there for now. The moderate will win easily...and while conservatives like me will bellyache, we will also take heart that Hillary is not president. So you're predicting that a country that has elected a moderate in 9 out of the last 14 elections (and all of the last 5 elections) will elect a moderate? With predictive skills like these, I'm not sure how you've avoided winning the lottery. Quote: One day, however...we will rise! Woe to the liberals and neocons when that happens! Oh, yeah. Woe to them... _________________ www.christianmetalforums.com "There's no virtue in having an opinion, especially if it's wrong." - Rush Limbaugh "...remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it." - Barack Hussein Obama   Conservative , Liberal..ad infinitum...     Page 3 of 6 Goto page :   1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6   Permissions of this forum: You cannot reply to topics in this forum The Christian Metal Realm :: Beliefs and Hobbies :: The Study and Debating Realm The Christian Metal Realm :: Beliefs and Hobbies :: The Study and Debating Realm Free forum | © phpbb | Free forum support | Report an abuse | Create a blog