Conservatism without religion?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   
First, I think one has to define the type of "conservatism" they are talking about. There is a good bit of difference between paleo-conservatism and the modern neo-conservatives. I lean towards paleo-conservatism. I believe in a small government, staying out of other nations affairs (many presidents should look into THAT idea), people being taxed just enough to keep the government fiscally sovent, and most matters being solved at the state or local level where possible, if the Constitution or Bill of Rights are not being violated of course.

That being said, there is no "conservative membership card" that requires you to belong to or even believe in an organized religion. Just as there is no "liberal membership card" that requires you be an atheist.

I think that at the end of the day, a person will never find a political philosophy that they are 100% in agreement with. There will probably always be an issue or two in any political party that you take issue with. The key is to find the one that most fits your personal beliefs.




posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by BrianFlanders

Originally posted by votan
reply to post by BrianFlanders
 


why does "conservatism" and "liberalism" need to exist in the first place? that is a better question

eff those things that are used to divide people


Well, people who disagree are supposed to be divided. I personally don't want to be one with people who are wrong. I am just as distrustful of people who want us to all just get along as I am of people who try too hard to work on wedges.

People who are wrong need to be opposed.


But few people are right about everything. Just as few are wrong about everything.

Liberalism and Conservatism are labels to force people into choosing the pre-determined package of preconceptions they disagree with least.

The purpose is to keep debate within controlled margins and stifle thought.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkrunner

I think that at the end of the day, a person will never find a political philosophy that they are 100% in agreement with. There will probably always be an issue or two in any political party that you take issue with. The key is to find the one that most fits your personal beliefs.


Naturally. But then a certain amount of this is unavoidable and a certain amount of it is intentional. Again, I believe there are certain things that the people who run things don't want and so they make sure that the people who want whatever that is cannot choose the party or candidate that is most favorable to whatever it is because said party/candidate is diametrically opposed to everything else they believe in.

In other words, just because one party/candidate/whatever fits 90% of your personal beliefs doesn't mean the other 10% isn't a matter of critical importance. They know this. People who cannot really find a suitable candidate for all of their beliefs are more likely to refrain from voting at all or throw their vote away on a Ron Paul type of candidate (I'm not saying there's anything wrong with him. Just that he could never win and those who vote for him are basically giving their vote to the left).

What it all boils down to is that 90% is usually a bunch of relatively minor issues that only seem more substantial because there are a lot more of them. Most people have a couple of seemingly insignificant issues that really matter to them. But what are you supposed to do if, for example, you (for example) believe strongly in abortion rights but you also believe in extremely limited government (fiscal conservatism)? That is a psychological roadblock that you cannot circumvent in this country. The people who are most in line with the limited government idea are really actually not at all in favor of limited government (they're lying, basically). But the alternative is the people who openly advocate massive government. They also believe in the right to choose as long as you don't choose to live without health insurance or as long as you don't choose to eat things that are bad for you, etc.

Essentially, the two parties work together to prevent choice. Whatever you choose, they win. The same agenda keeps going no matter who is in office. The part of it we know as the liberal agenda gets put on hold when there's a "conservative" in office but the policies generally remain in place just waiting for the next "liberal". And vice versa.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by justwokeup
But few people are right about everything. Just as few are wrong about everything.


But again, this is often by design. Everyday people are generally just doing/saying what they think is right but the people who are actually running the system know what they're doing. They know when they do or say something that is patently wrong, we cannot just be still and let it slide. It's a logical Kobayashi Maru. Except the ordinary citizen does not have a command rank. We don't have the authority to change the rules so we can win. The people who make the rules make sure we can't do that.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
There is a concerted effort in the religious right to gain CONTROL of the country and they're moving with a religious conviction the rest of us have no clue about. They will not stop or be stopped except by a concerted effort to do so. And I don't see that happening.


Again - I have to agree with you. I wish that more Christians like me would have their eyes opened to the hypocrisy of the religious right (not in the faith). If Christ came back today, the religious right would be the first ones to nail Him back onto the cross for not being what they view as "Christian". He preached love and tolerance and railed against the religious right of His time!



It's interesting to see how politics has changed over my lifetime. Scary and (I think) hopeless, but interesting.


Amen sister!



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by BrianFlanders
 


Social policy isn't what has kept Democrats in power in recent years. It never even got Obama in there since he was against gay marriage for most of his first first term.

In 2006 Democrats controlled Congress due to Republican foreign policy failures in the War on Terror and especially Iraq. The sting from the election even caused Bush to get rid of Donald Rumsfeld and implement the "surge" strategy for Iraq.

In 2008 and 2012 Democrats, and in particular Obama, won due to economic policy. When times are tough people don't want to hear conservatives say "You're on your own." They want to have some type of assurance that they won't be living on the street next month.

The fact is that conservatives are wrong on everything. They're facing demographic winter and there is nothing that will stop their eventual extinction. The only thing that would at this point would be a literal miracle.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Liberalism will never work under our current economic structure because it demands that others pay and it simply costs too much.
edit on 18-7-2013 by joer4x4 because: spelling



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by BrianFlanders
 


It's just Democrats propaganda to scare people away. No one is outlawing abortion.

The Democrats are master social engineer and they are expert in the Alinsky model.

Class Warfare
Race Warfare
and Sex(Male vs. Female) Warfare

They use the above to divide and conquer.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by BrianFlanders
The problem with libertarianism is that it just scares people. Even I have to admit full fledged libertarianism isn't realistic at all.


People are so addicted to having a higher power appoint their life decisions that they can't possibly imagine a world where the government doesn't provide streets, water, power, law-making, etc...

Full fledged libertarianism is possible and realistic, just depends how you perceive this world and how the world works.

What is the golden rule again? You leave me alone and I'll leave you alone so long as we don't harm others. That is the essence of libertarianism and it is the sole reason why it works.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Start off with philosophy. What do you believe is right and wrong? How much of that should be enforced publicly? Why or why not?
Look into the history of law. Why do we have divisions of powers? What does it mean to be a "libertarian" or a "federalist?" Should some laws be subject to local mores?
Like others have said on this thread before me, don't just choose one of the "available options," and don't do it based on what you feel about "conservatives" or "liberals" or "libertarians." First, understand the history of the laws of your nation and the philosophy undergirding them, and then make your decisions. Be informed. Read the actual legal documents, not some activist's version of legal history.
At least, that's what I suggest!


Incidentally, from what I've seen, classical liberalism and conservatism, though different, have similar ideas at points (look into Edmund Burke and John Locke, for instance.) Modern day liberalism is an outgrowth of progressivism, not classical liberalism (I think) and modern day conservatism is actually not conservative, nor does it resemble traditional conservatism, at least as I understand it. In short, the labels are next to meaningless.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrianFlanders
I'm not saying conservatives should give up on the idea of religious freedom. On the contrary. If you want to be a Christian or a Jew or whatever, go for it. Just don't force it.
*snip*
If conservatives started being more accepting of sexual freedom and atheism, it would send the liberals into a panic because other than the perception of racism and the class thing, that's all they've got.


So, you claim to respect religious freedom, while at the same time asking those with a certain belief to ignore their beliefs, and fit themselves to some other mold?

Contradictory.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by BrianFlanders
I'm not saying conservatives should give up on the idea of religious freedom. On the contrary. If you want to be a Christian or a Jew or whatever, go for it. Just don't force it.
*snip*
If conservatives started being more accepting of sexual freedom and atheism, it would send the liberals into a panic because other than the perception of racism and the class thing, that's all they've got.


So, you claim to respect religious freedom, while at the same time asking those with a certain belief to ignore their beliefs, and fit themselves to some other mold?

Contradictory.


Not at all. I have never stormed into someone's church and demanded they stop believing. I just don't want their beliefs forced on me politically. It's fine with me if they believe this or that is amoral but they need to realize they live in a society with other people who don't believe the same things. Many of us out here are all for limited government and fiscal conservatism but they scare us off by not accepting our religious freedom (the right NOT to believe).

Personally, I thought I was a liberal until Obama. Ever since, I get along better with conservatives (even religious conservatives) than I do with hardcore liberals.

Conservatives need to learn to play the game the way liberals do. And that is a game in which it doesn't really matter how you win as long as you win. This is the game the liberals are playing. Conservatives need atheists and gays and women and blacks and all the other minorities that liberals manage to keep under their tent by convincing them all conservatives hate them.

Is it really a contradiction in your mind to enjoy and practice your own religion and let others do the same?

If you really believe in freedom, you should believe (for example) other people have the right to watch pornography (as long as it's consenting adults) even if pornography is considered to be bad by your religious beliefs. You can't tell other people what they can and can't watch in their own homes or what they can and can't do in their own bedrooms and claim you believe in freedom.
edit on 19-7-2013 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frith
reply to post by BrianFlanders
 


Social policy isn't what has kept Democrats in power in recent years. It never even got Obama in there since he was against gay marriage for most of his first first term.

In 2006 Democrats controlled Congress due to Republican foreign policy failures in the War on Terror and especially Iraq. The sting from the election even caused Bush to get rid of Donald Rumsfeld and implement the "surge" strategy for Iraq.


I certainly agree that Bush's "war on terror" policies were largely responsible for the backlash and the wave that Obama rode in on. But of course, Obama has (more or less) quietly (until recently) continued many of the same policies (and even expanded on some of them) so it was mainly just a perception that Obama was different on this that allowed him to win.

But also (particularly in 2012) the fact that the Republicans put up the weakest candidate they could possibly ever find was a very big factor. Obama may have still been riding the tail end of the Bush backlash to some extent but Romney just wasn't a viable candidate. He didn't inspire people.

The only thing he was talking about that sounded good was getting rid of Obamacare. And again, there is a reason they put Romney up there to run against Obama at that specific time. Because on the critical issue of "healthcare" there was really no difference. Obamacare was/is Romneycare taken national. It's pretty hard for a politician to do a complete 180 and claim he didn't mean what he did a few years ago. The Republicans needed a candidate who could credibly oppose Obamacare and they seemed to have purposely chosen one who couldn't. Suspicious, no?


In 2008 and 2012 Democrats, and in particular Obama, won due to economic policy. When times are tough people don't want to hear conservatives say "You're on your own." They want to have some type of assurance that they won't be living on the street next month.


Well, I would argue that when times are tough, people do not want to be fined for not buying insurance and have it called a tax to be collected by the IRS. Particularly when this is the exact opposite of what the president campaigned on before he was elected in 08 (he was famously against the mandate then, if you might recall). He suddenly "changed his mind" when the election was behind him and he didn't need the support of people who were against this mandate.

It is obviously true that people are more likely to vote for a politician who exploits their vulnerabilities (poverty/minority/etc) in order to win their support. But that is one of the critical flaws in Democracy. It's pretty easy to find 50 million useful idiots, unfortunately.


The fact is that conservatives are wrong on everything.


Not quite. They are not wrong about freedom. They are just not consistent about it. And they aren't truly sincere about it. They know it sounds good so they use it the same way liberals use the class/race/gender warfare rhetoric. None of it is genuine. It's just telling people what they want to hear.



They're facing demographic winter and there is nothing that will stop their eventual extinction. The only thing that would at this point would be a literal miracle.


Well, the problem is they're trying to appeal to the small/limited government demographic with policies that are the exact opposite. Not many people have forgotten that Bush was anything but limited government. Most people have figured it out that when the Republicans actually get power, big government persists. The only difference is really what areas of the government will grow under which party. But it will always grow. Everyone knows this.
edit on 19-7-2013 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrianFlanders

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by BrianFlanders
I'm not saying conservatives should give up on the idea of religious freedom. On the contrary. If you want to be a Christian or a Jew or whatever, go for it. Just don't force it.
*snip*
If conservatives started being more accepting of sexual freedom and atheism, it would send the liberals into a panic because other than the perception of racism and the class thing, that's all they've got.


So, you claim to respect religious freedom, while at the same time asking those with a certain belief to ignore their beliefs, and fit themselves to some other mold?

Contradictory.


Not at all. I have never stormed into someone's church and demanded they stop believing. I just don't want their beliefs forced on me politically. It's fine with me if they believe this or that is amoral but they need to realize they live in a society with other people who don't believe the same things. Many of us out here are all for limited government and fiscal conservatism but they scare us off by not accepting our religious freedom (the right NOT to believe).

Personally, I thought I was a liberal until Obama. Ever since, I get along better with conservatives (even religious conservatives) than I do with hardcore liberals.

Conservatives need to learn to play the game the way liberals do. And that is a game in which it doesn't really matter how you win as long as you win. This is the game the liberals are playing. Conservatives need atheists and gays and women and blacks and all the other minorities that liberals manage to keep under their tent by convincing them all conservatives hate them.

Is it really a contradiction in your mind to enjoy and practice your own religion and let others do the same?

If you really believe in freedom, you should believe (for example) other people have the right to watch pornography (as long as it's consenting adults) even if pornography is considered to be bad by your religious beliefs. You can't tell other people what they can and can't watch in their own homes or what they can and can't do in their own bedrooms and claim you believe in freedom.
edit on 19-7-2013 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)


That's not Freedom that's Hedonism, huge difference. I am Not conservative, but I am not Moral relativist either...want to watch porn fine,

BUT...

There should be Strict Punishment for when there is Forced rape, torture and trafficking for your porn then YOU should be charged for felony accessory TO that. In yes my radical FEMINist opinion, these are Not Victimless industries.

That's what pisses me off about the Hypicrisy of LIBERALS, and where I DO have a LOT of Respect for the Religious...at Least the religious DO think of the Freedom and Rights of the Minority OR the disenfranchised Or the Vulnerable in Many issues, where as,

Liberals will Crap all over them, Especially if it's Women, Children and Minorities for their hedonist kicks, as well as the poor,

That's not FREEDOM! THAT'S EXPLOITATION! Under the Mask of a Huge DECEPTION.

What we NEED is a HUMAN RIGHTS PARTY. The Rights NOT to be exploited, raped, trafficked, COERCED into slavery or sex slavery for some ASSWIPES Pleasure. That's the Mega hypocrisy of the left,

Class warfare, race and gender, etc...Don't expect the Left to lead you out of Egypt, THEY ARE EGYPT.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThreeBears


That's not Freedom that's Hedonism, huge difference. I am Not conservative, but I am not Moral relativist either...want to watch porn fine,

BUT...

There should be Strict Punishment for when there is Forced rape, torture and trafficking for your porn then YOU should be charged for felony accessory TO that.


This simply does not happen very often (that's to say that it isn't the rule) in the vast majority of the legitimate porn industry. There have been many desperate attempt to make it appear as though it does but these people are so virulently anti-porn/anti-freedom they will go to any lengths to make their POV appear to have more merit than it actually does.

Furthermore, I don't know why you would argue that a customer who is unaware of such things should be charged as an accessory to a crime. Porn (even most of the more extreme porn) is generally understood to be scripted. Once again, the vast majority of porn that is made and sold in the US is (supposed to be) 100% consensual. People who respond to ads for work in the porn industry, sign papers of consent and accept and cash the checks are not victims.

I'm sure some bad stuff happens but people cannot be expected to know the difference every single time just from watching a movie.

If you want to attack people on things they have no knowledge of, you can attack yourself for all the stuff you buy that's produced in sweatshops overseas. Virtually no one is innocent of that.


In yes my radical FEMINist opinion, these are Not Victimless industries.


If you want to look at it that way, there is no such thing as a victimless industry. There are dirty players in every industry. Who made your shoes? How much are they paid per hour? Where do they live? What do they eat? Who made your computer/smartphone/whatever? See where I'm going?

It is not the industry itself that is the problem. People who just mindlessly attack porn are attacking sexual freedom. They don't care about any of this. If they do find genuine abuse or criminal activity, it is just an excuse to push their main agenda.

It simply offends them. To them, that is a crime that is far worse than anything else anyone could possibly do. Never offend a control freak. They will search until they find a few molecules of something that is genuinely bad to paint the whole group with.
edit on 19-7-2013 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by votan
 





why does "conservatism" and "liberalism" need to exist in the first place? that is a better question


(Raises hand spastically) They're used because labels are handy when trying to communicate. Like, duh.

I had a teacher once who imparted this gem of an idea: "Every human interaction depends on the definition of terms used... definition of terms, people!"

Now it seems obvious, but if you really give it a good thinkin' it helps in identifying problems and refining arguments across the board.

What do people really mean by "liberal" and "conservative?" We can't even have a decent discussion until those terms are defined for everyone involved.

The generally accepted meanings have morphed over the years... and worse (or better) yet, everyone is a mix of the two general terms... unless they're hopelessly devoid of brain matter.

So... yeah, define the terms and then, perhaps, someone will know what the heck is going on.

EDIT: Sorry Darkrunner, your post covered this concept better than I did and I just replied before reading the rest of the thread... the curse of working from home and having too much time to kill.
edit on 7/19/2013 by Baddogma because: Jumping gun before thread completely read



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   
I can't answer your question, OP, because nobody is sure who "owns" conservatism these days. I'll explain what I mean.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I would call myself a reformed left-wing radical that ended up as a left-wing libertarian. I build my politics around skepticism of the motives, power, and the very worth, of large organisations, public or private. I believe in capitalism, but the kind of capitalism where they are many firms, many of which who are free to fail, not the "capitalism" that we have today, which is straight up kleptocratic in nature.

Right now, the republican party is exists as a coalition consisting of three major ideological groups. During the Bush years, these three groups overlapped heavily. Now, after two failed presidential campaigns, not so much.

The first group, the evangelical/social conservatives, have made re-fighting the 60's culture war their focus. To many of them, the answer to the OPs question would be something like "American Liberty is impossible to understand/practice if you deny the existence of the Judeo-Christian god. America is a Christian nation, founded on biblical teaching, and you can't be a real conservative if you disagree." At the extremes, there start to be overlap with straight-up theocratic nut-jobs and white nationalism. To social conservatives, they are the REAL Conservatives, the REAL Republicans, and the REAL Americans. Policy is morality to these folks and (in my anecdotal experience) they are the ones that confuse moderation and political compromise with selling out, weakness, and treason. There is reason to believe that they are simply going to die out as a major demographic; the country is becoming more secular and there is some defection of evangelicals to left-wing stances. I wouldn't be the first one to point out that there is enough room for a social conservative/fiscal liberal party.

If you haven't noticed, I detest this group (Boy do I wish I could send them all back in time to Calvinist Geneva, than everyone would be happy!) and think the alliance between evangelical churches and the Republican party have ruined both.

The second group are the fiscal conservatives. These people tend towards a pragmatic libertarian mindset. To this group, social issues simply don't matter that much, and/or should be dealt with using the federalism principle(I.E. let these issues be settled at the lowest practical political unit possible, which is usually the states.). To them, freedom and liberty is pretty much synonymous with being able to do whatever you want with your capital in the market place. "Who cares if someone is a transsexual black atheist (insert your social conservative boogieman!) or whatever? The only thing better than someone voting to keep taxes and regulation low is someone I can do some business with." In my view, they overlook how big business and big government are more partners than enemies* but I find them, more or less, to be pragmatic, tolerant, and realistic.

The OP is certainly a "real" conservative if you are a fiscal conservative first, anything else second.

The last group are the neo-cons. They are the "We are going to liberate the HELL out of you, rest of the world!" crowd that was briefly popular from 9/12/2001 until it become undeniable that the Iraq war was an awful, awful, mistake. These dudes are weird and not like the other two groups. As far as I can tell, there really isn't a natural "neo-con" block of voters somewhere. I view neo-conservatism as a passing intellectual fad for Washington D.C. policy wanks and other insiders. It will be another ten to fifteen years before a national candidate will be able to sell an aggressive interventionist foreign policy (until then, they will just lie about their intentions at election time and then do it anyway, lol). They are dead as a popular political force, but you still see their influence around (See: John McCain).

Of course, this being the Abovetopsecret forums, it would be almost negligent if I didn't point out that there has been much speculation about what neo-conservatism is really about (I'm talking about NWO and Illuminati theories, obviously). I'm skeptical, but if there was ever a group that would be OK with forced global governance, it would be the neo-cons.

I don't think your average Neo-con gives a rat's ass about what is true conservatism.

I hope this helps and I'll try not to be so damn wordy next time.

*I could go one for another 2000 words about how big business and big government enable each other. Long story short, we now have a situation in which it is now becoming very hard to tell when government ends and business begins. Now you might think I'm talking about bad regulations and state intervention in the economy, which I am, but I am also talking about the reckless privatization of government functions that has been traditionally a "conservative" policy. This looks like the merger of the interests of state and capital, i.e., true blue real fascism.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrianFlanders

Originally posted by Darkrunner

I think that at the end of the day, a person will never find a political philosophy that they are 100% in agreement with. There will probably always be an issue or two in any political party that you take issue with. The key is to find the one that most fits your personal beliefs.


Naturally. But then a certain amount of this is unavoidable and a certain amount of it is intentional. Again, I believe there are certain things that the people who run things don't want and so they make sure that the people who want whatever that is cannot choose the party or candidate that is most favorable to whatever it is because said party/candidate is diametrically opposed to everything else they believe in.

In other words, just because one party/candidate/whatever fits 90% of your personal beliefs doesn't mean the other 10% isn't a matter of critical importance. They know this. People who cannot really find a suitable candidate for all of their beliefs are more likely to refrain from voting at all or throw their vote away on a Ron Paul type of candidate (I'm not saying there's anything wrong with him. Just that he could never win and those who vote for him are basically giving their vote to the left).

What it all boils down to is that 90% is usually a bunch of relatively minor issues that only seem more substantial because there are a lot more of them. Most people have a couple of seemingly insignificant issues that really matter to them. But what are you supposed to do if, for example, you (for example) believe strongly in abortion rights but you also believe in extremely limited government (fiscal conservatism)? That is a psychological roadblock that you cannot circumvent in this country. The people who are most in line with the limited government idea are really actually not at all in favor of limited government (they're lying, basically). But the alternative is the people who openly advocate massive government. They also believe in the right to choose as long as you don't choose to live without health insurance or as long as you don't choose to eat things that are bad for you, etc.

Essentially, the two parties work together to prevent choice. Whatever you choose, they win. The same agenda keeps going no matter who is in office. The part of it we know as the liberal agenda gets put on hold when there's a "conservative" in office but the policies generally remain in place just waiting for the next "liberal". And vice versa.


I see where you are coming from, but then, what is the alternative? A monarchy? A dictatorship. It would seem we are perpetually stuck with a two party system.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkrunner
 


Glad to see someone understands the idea behind what I call Goldwater conservatism, an ideology that is about true sustainability and keeping members of said society self reliant instead of placing all their weight on government like some banana republic. Sadly, that's what we've now become and are going to continue towards until our fiat money system, of which the left has no issue destroying, completely crashes the entire world currency system.

The issue at hand that people don't understand is the father of liberalism was a philosopher named Hegel, who believed in strict rule by government and started the road towards the collective conscious. Marx was one of his fans as our current administration's ideology towards leading the country. Hegel was a fantastic speaker and caught people of guard with his incredible ability to make a sophisticated system of social engineering seem viable and sustainable. Like Kant, he steered away from religion and began the "people are the religion" so to speak. When people start claiming socialism and communism they seem to be two steps off from the true idea, hegelian principles are what we're seeing in actions today, coming with more authoritarian rule and less mobility for common citizen. More and more I recognize this in Obama and his gallery of misfit toys that seem almost out to avenge all those beating they withstood on the playground so many years ago.

One wonders what will be next, a further shirt to a radicalized right and theocracy or a more intolerant set of social rules that make Sharia Law look mild? One has to wonder.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by BrianFlanders
 


American conservatism comes from the civil rights movement.....and they weren't on the right side.
Regular people who think they are conservative. Are IMO just being fooled into voting against there own interests. Not that regular conservatives are evil or any such animal, but the GOP has been bought and paid for by corporate america for decades. Conservatives throughout modern politics have used lies, religion and race baiting to talk the rest of us into voting for them.

Conservatives have basically been voting in whoever claims to be the most Christian for years. It's conservatives that want you to have to have a child even in the case of incest, rape or LotM. Its conservatives who want Intelligent design taught in schools. It's conservative who wanna end the few welfare programs we have and let the church handle that kinda thing ( forgetting not everyone is religious and Churches don't even have the money). Its conservatives who back the war on drugs and the current justice system.

If it had been up to the conservatives. Women wouldn't vote. Blacks wouldn't vote.


I've got a joke....the funniest joke ever....

The government isn't robbing us blind to steal from us....there giving too much away to poor people. LMAO
I can't believe they actually have there base convinced this is true.





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join