True Conservative Politicians? List them. - Page 3

General » General Discussion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - True Conservative Politicians? List them. (Page 3 of 4)

Posted: 7/13/2009 8:08:54 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Ron Paul

This.

Posted: 7/13/2009 8:09:33 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

Quoted:
BTW President Obama is against gay marriage. Would you say he was a social conservative?

You've made my point for me. Standing in opposition to personal liberty is precisely the kind of philosophy I would expect to be embraced by a hard-left, tinpot, would-be dictator.

Dude, look at all of the problems we face right now, and your main concern is allowing gays to marry? Not allowing gays to marry isn't what I would call dictatorial or despotic, particularly when most of the country is against it. Not that it makes it any more right, but it is hardly oppression.

IN the grand pecking order of importance, no, it's not important. The issue does prove illustrative, though, as a litmus test for where someone stands on individual freedom. Someone who believes the .gov should be able to dictate relationship status between consenting adults is likely to approve of various other governmental intrusions. It is also a useful issue to use to highlight the rift between religious right neoconservatism and traditional "conservatism", which is actually classical liberalism.

I don't think that you would see Barry Goldwater (the father of conservatism) standing up to argue for gay marriage in '64, I don't think he would be for it. I also don't think that just because someone doesn't believe in gay marriage that they are automatically against freedom as you seem to imply.

I do agree though that government shouldn't dictate who can engage in contracts and who can't, that's what makes me a libertarian.

But this isn't an issue that needs to be in the fore front.

Posted: 7/13/2009 8:10:23 AM EDT

[#3]

Congressman John Carter, 31st Congressional District of Texas

Posted: 7/13/2009 8:16:19 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
VTHOKIESHOOTER you should have know better, next time just yell food fight.

I'm trying to help people understand what a conservative is, and I'm being tarred and feathered if I point out something that is inaccurate.

What I don't understand is why people who have at least 70% of the issues in common can't get along, while the other side has united and is working to squash us like bugs.

People are acting as if evangelicals are tyrannical bigots, and the socially conservatives go ape shit when a person believes one should have the right to ingest any chemical they want, while evangelicals call you a satan worshipping heathen if you profess your belief in something other than Jesus.

We either need to unite under similar ideals or we shall all hang separately. We really do need to find a way to coexist, and reconcile and respect differences.

Posted: 7/13/2009 8:19:42 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

I don't think that you would see Barry Goldwater (the father of conservatism) standing up to argue for gay marriage in '64, I don't think he would be for it. I also don't think that just because someone doesn't believe in gay marriage that they are automatically against freedom as you seem to imply.
I do agree though that government shouldn't dictate who can engage in contracts and who can't, that's what makes me a libertarian.
But this isn't an issue that needs to be in the fore front.

But you get it.
Gay marriage is a issue who sole purpose is as a tool to try and divide true Conservatives from normally allied libertarians. Libertarians had better wake up and realize they cannot have a fiscal Conservative in office by alienating true Conservatives. True Conservatives will give on some things but gay marriage will not be one of them, get used to the idea or be prepared to live with radical Democrats forever. Gay marriage is not a primary voting issue for anyone but the radical left and some loud libertarians so why act like is the only issue, it is a issue contrary to all the cheast thumping that speaks very little about freedom.
And yes true Conservatives are also social Conservatives.

Posted: 7/13/2009 8:22:03 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I don't think that you would see Barry Goldwater (the father of conservatism) standing up to argue for gay marriage in '64, I don't think he would be for it. I also don't think that just because someone doesn't believe in gay marriage that they are automatically against freedom as you seem to imply.

I do agree though that government shouldn't dictate who can engage in contracts and who can't, that's what makes me a libertarian.

But this isn't an issue that needs to be in the fore front.

But you get it.

Gay marriage is a issue who sole purpose is as a tool to try and divide true Conservatives from normally allied libertarians. Libertarians had better wake up and realize they cannot have a fiscal Conservative in office by alienating true Conservatives. True Conservatives will give on some things but gay marriage will not be one of them, get used to the idea or be prepared to live with radical Democrats forever. Gay marriage is not a primary voting issue for anyone but the radical left and some loud libertarians so why act like is the only issue.

And yes true Conservatives are also social Conservatives.

Agree on all points except, one day, gays will be allowed to be married, and it will be accomplished by the democratic party, taking it completely off the table for debate, much like how inter-racial dating/marriage was in the '50's and 60's.

Also, Ron Paul is also against gay marriage. I guess he is just an anti-freedom tyrant too.

Posted: 7/13/2009 8:23:21 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I don't think that you would see Barry Goldwater (the father of conservatism) standing up to argue for gay marriage in '64, I don't think he would be for it. I also don't think that just because someone doesn't believe in gay marriage that they are automatically against freedom as you seem to imply.

I do agree though that government shouldn't dictate who can engage in contracts and who can't, that's what makes me a libertarian.

But this isn't an issue that needs to be in the fore front.

But you get it.

Gay marriage is a issue who sole purpose is as a tool to try and divide true Conservatives from normally allied libertarians. Libertarians had better wake up and realize they cannot have a fiscal Conservative in office by alienating true Conservatives. True Conservatives will give on some things but gay marriage will not be one of them, get used to the idea or be prepared to live with radical Democrats forever. Gay marriage is not a primary voting issue for anyone but the radical left and some loud libertarians so why act like is the only issue.

And yes true Conservatives are also social Conservatives.

This is why I don't always have to vote for someone who has 100% of my views. That person doesn't exist. I look for a candidate that best represents my views. 85% or more and pick them. We will never all agree on one candidate that shares 100% of all of our views.

Posted: 7/13/2009 8:25:02 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I don't think that you would see Barry Goldwater (the father of conservatism) standing up to argue for gay marriage in '64, I don't think he would be for it. I also don't think that just because someone doesn't believe in gay marriage that they are automatically against freedom as you seem to imply.

I do agree though that government shouldn't dictate who can engage in contracts and who can't, that's what makes me a libertarian.

But this isn't an issue that needs to be in the fore front.

But you get it.

Gay marriage is a issue who sole purpose is as a tool to try and divide true Conservatives from normally allied libertarians. Libertarians had better wake up and realize they cannot have a fiscal Conservative in office by alienating true Conservatives. True Conservatives will give on some things but gay marriage will not be one of them, get used to the idea or be prepared to live with radical Democrats forever. Gay marriage is not a primary voting issue for anyone but the radical left and some loud libertarians so why act like is the only issue.

And yes true Conservatives are also social Conservatives.

This is why I don't always have to vote for someone who has 100% of my views. That person doesn't exist. I look for a candidate that best represents my views. 85% or more and pick them. We will never all agree on one candidate that shares 100% of all of our views.

This is the adult view.

Posted: 7/13/2009 8:25:55 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I don't think that you would see Barry Goldwater (the father of conservatism) standing up to argue for gay marriage in '64, I don't think he would be for it. I also don't think that just because someone doesn't believe in gay marriage that they are automatically against freedom as you seem to imply.

I do agree though that government shouldn't dictate who can engage in contracts and who can't, that's what makes me a libertarian.

But this isn't an issue that needs to be in the fore front.

But you get it.

Gay marriage is a issue who sole purpose is as a tool to try and divide true Conservatives from normally allied libertarians. Libertarians had better wake up and realize they cannot have a fiscal Conservative in office by alienating true Conservatives. True Conservatives will give on some things but gay marriage will not be one of them, get used to the idea or be prepared to live with radical Democrats forever. Gay marriage is not a primary voting issue for anyone but the radical left and some loud libertarians so why act like is the only issue.

And yes true Conservatives are also social Conservatives.

This is why I don't always have to vote for someone who has 100% of my views. That person doesn't exist. I look for a candidate that best represents my views. 85% or more and pick them. We will never all agree on one candidate that shares 100% of all of our views.

That's more or less how it works, unless the other 15% is a MAJOR issue. Also which needs to be addressed is that the 15% difference must be respected and debated, not mocked and ridiculed.

Posted: 7/13/2009 8:26:33 AM EDT

[#10]

Can someone describe "true conservative" to me? I dunno, im sick of GOP'ers talking about low taxes, less gubbmint and then go pandering to the christians trying to pass this behavior law or that one. Im pretty happy with my Rep, Peter King (R-ny) hes the guy who just got in the news for calling Michael Jackson a pervert!

MY fav ideologues are of course Buckley and George Will and Goldwater. "Now you listen here you goddamn queer!" (anyone remember when Buckley said that to Gore Vidal on TV?) IMHO- these are the true libertarian old school conservatives who were the heart of the party and led to the Reagan revolution before it got highjacked by the Christians with their own weird agenda. You know, Let Israel do whatever she wants so that at the "end times" the Jews will be ripe for their sacrifice!

I found the footage of Buckley threatening to kick the shit out of Gore Vidal for calling him a crypto-nazi––

Damn queer!

Posted: 7/13/2009 8:29:11 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I don't think that you would see Barry Goldwater (the father of conservatism) standing up to argue for gay marriage in '64, I don't think he would be for it. I also don't think that just because someone doesn't believe in gay marriage that they are automatically against freedom as you seem to imply.

I do agree though that government shouldn't dictate who can engage in contracts and who can't, that's what makes me a libertarian.

But this isn't an issue that needs to be in the fore front.

But you get it.

Gay marriage is a issue who sole purpose is as a tool to try and divide true Conservatives from normally allied libertarians. Libertarians had better wake up and realize they cannot have a fiscal Conservative in office by alienating true Conservatives. True Conservatives will give on some things but gay marriage will not be one of them, get used to the idea or be prepared to live with radical Democrats forever. Gay marriage is not a primary voting issue for anyone but the radical left and some loud libertarians so why act like is the only issue.

And yes true Conservatives are also social Conservatives.

This is why I don't always have to vote for someone who has 100% of my views. That person doesn't exist. I look for a candidate that best represents my views. 85% or more and pick them. We will never all agree on one candidate that shares 100% of all of our views.

That's more or less how it works, unless the other 15% is a MAJOR issue. Also which needs to be addressed is that the 15% difference must be respected and debated, not mocked and ridiculed.

True.

Posted: 7/13/2009 8:31:09 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Can someone describe "true conservative" to me? I dunno, im sick of GOP'ers talking about low taxes, less gubbmint and then go pandering to the christians trying to pass this behavior law or that one. Im pretty happy with my Rep, Peter King (R-ny) hes the guy who just got in the news for calling Michael Jackson a pervert!

MY fav ideologues are of course Buckley and George Will and Goldwater. "Now you listen here you goddamn queer!" (anyone remember when Buckley said that to Gore Vidal on TV?) IMHO- these are the true libertarian old school conservatives who were the heart of the party and led to the Reagan revolution before it got highjacked by the Christians with their own weird agenda. You know, Let Israel do whatever she wants so that at the "end times" the Jews will be ripe for their sacrifice!

I found the footage of Buckley threatening to kick the shit out of Gore Vidal for calling him a crypto-nazi––

Damn queer!

The party isn't high-jacked by Christians, it has been hi-jacked by countryclub/Rockefeller Republicans. ie John McCain, Colin Powell, Susan Collins, Arnold Schwarzenegger. The media has just done a spectacular job in painting the picture that is those bigoted Christians, but fiscal conservatives and social conservatives have both been given the finger by the elite RINO's.

The sooner we can understand and reconcile that, the better and stronger we will be. With the exception of the Terry Shivo fiasco, I can't think of a single detrimental act perpetrated by the Christian wing of the GOP.

Posted: 7/13/2009 8:33:07 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Agree on all points except, one day, gays will be allowed to be married, and it will be accomplished by the democratic party, taking it completely off the table for debate, much like how inter-racial dating/marriage was in the '50's and 60's.

Also, Ron Paul is also against gay marriage. I guess he is just an anti-freedom tyrant too.

You are probably right, my main point is for people who scream if you do not support gay marriage you are somehow anti-freedom, that is childish bullshit. Before anyone chimes in this is wrong I will remind you most of the proponents of gay marriage are about as anti-freedom as they get, this is undeniable.

Well many Paul supporters suffer from terminal cognitive dissonance and can ignore your last point while screaming at someone they hate freedom for not supporting gay marriage and do so without even blinking.

Posted: 7/13/2009 8:35:13 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

The party isn't high-jacked by Christians, it has been hi-jacked by countryclub/Rockefeller Republicans. ie John McCain, Colin Powell, Susan Collins, Arnold Schwarzenegger. The media has just done a spectacular job in painting the picture that is those bigoted Christians, but fiscal conservatives and social conservatives have both been given the finger by the elite RINO's.

The sooner we can understand and reconcile that, the better and stronger we will be. With the exception of the Terry Shivo fiasco, I can't think of a single detrimental act perpetrated by the Christian wing of the GOP.

Yep you get it.

Posted: 7/13/2009 8:37:12 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Can someone describe "true conservative" to me? I dunno, im sick of GOP'ers talking about low taxes, less gubbmint and then go pandering to the christians trying to pass this behavior law or that one. Im pretty happy with my Rep, Peter King (R-ny) hes the guy who just got in the news for calling Michael Jackson a pervert!

MY fav ideologues are of course Buckley and George Will and Goldwater. "Now you listen here you goddamn queer!" (anyone remember when Buckley said that to Gore Vidal on TV?) IMHO- these are the true libertarian old school conservatives who were the heart of the party and led to the Reagan revolution before it got highjacked by the Christians with their own weird agenda. You know, Let Israel do whatever she wants so that at the "end times" the Jews will be ripe for their sacrifice!

I found the footage of Buckley threatening to kick the shit out of Gore Vidal for calling him a crypto-nazi––

Damn queer!

The party isn't high-jacked by Christians, it has been hi-jacked by countryclub/Rockefeller Republicans. ie John McCain, Colin Powell, Susan Collins, Arnold Schwarzenegger. The media has just done a spectacular job in painting the picture that is those bigoted Christians, but fiscal conservatives and social conservatives have both been given the finger by the elite RINO's.

The sooner we can understand and reconcile that, the better and stronger we will be. With the exception of the Terry Shivo fiasco, I can't think of a single detrimental act perpetrated by the Christian wing of the GOP.

The only thing I don't like is when fiscal liberals slip into the Republican party under the guise of being christian conservatives. I have no problem with those who have strong religious beliefs but they have to have core fiscal conservative values as well.

Posted: 7/13/2009 8:40:13 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
The only thing I don't like is when fiscal liberals slip into the Republican party under the guise of being christian conservatives. I have no problem with those who have strong religious beliefs but they have to have core fiscal conservative values as well.

Which is why my definition holds true. You are either a conservative, or you are not. Usually what happens is when they get into office, they are neither.

Posted: 7/13/2009 8:43:27 AM EDT

[#17]

My Congressman, Jeb Hensarling is a true Conservative.

Posted: 7/13/2009 8:43:45 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
The party isn't high-jacked by Christians, it has been hi-jacked by countryclub/Rockefeller Republicans. ie John McCain, Colin Powell, Susan Collins, Arnold Schwarzenegger. The media has just done a spectacular job in painting the picture that is those bigoted Christians, but fiscal conservatives and social conservatives have both been given the finger by the elite RINO's.

The sooner we can understand and reconcile that, the better and stronger we will be. With the exception of the Terry Shivo fiasco, I can't think of a single detrimental act perpetrated by the Christian wing of the GOP.

Well said.........

a-bare

Posted: 7/13/2009 8:44:47 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

The only thing I don't like is when fiscal liberals slip into the Republican party under the guise of being christian conservatives. I have no problem with those who have strong religious beliefs but they have to have core fiscal conservative values as well.

Well I think that is part of exactly what VTHOKIESHOOTER is trying to get at. Words mean things. To be a true Conservative one must be socially AND fiscally Conservative.

You cannot picks and choose and change the meanings of words and concepts just because you want to.

Posted: 7/13/2009 8:44:48 AM EDT

[#20]

Not exactly politicians, but in the political sphere Dick and Liz Cheney are some of the most clear headed conservatives around. Liz Cheney said she was 'open' for a political run too.

Posted: 7/13/2009 8:46:21 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Let's just say that a Conservative is mainly guided by the original intent of the Constitution.

Whoa. What a radical concept!

Wouldn't that be a Constitutionalist (not to be confused with the Constitution Party)?

Thus, a Conservative is one who wants to conserve (maintain) our original form of government.

Posted: 7/13/2009 8:46:21 AM EDT

[#22]

James Inhofe from Oklahoma. One of the few who will stand up to the greenies.

Fred Thompson.

Posted: 7/13/2009 8:47:30 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The only thing I don't like is when fiscal liberals slip into the Republican party under the guise of being Christian conservatives. I have no problem with those who have strong religious beliefs but they have to have core fiscal conservative values as well.

Which is why my definition holds true. You are either a conservative, or you are not. Usually what happens is when they get into office, they are neither.

But did being a conservative always mean holding strong religious beliefs or did it morph into that? I was always under the impression that a modern day conservative is more or less the modern term for a classical liberal.

Posted: 7/13/2009 8:47:37 AM EDT

[#24]

Ron Paul
Ron Reagan (his corps is more conservative than most of those in Congress)
...maybe Sarah Palin
Bachman seems promising.

Posted: 7/13/2009 8:48:37 AM EDT

[#25]

My rep, Rep. Jason Chaffetz.

Posted: 7/13/2009 8:52:01 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The only thing I don't like is when fiscal liberals slip into the Republican party under the guise of being Christian conservatives. I have no problem with those who have strong religious beliefs but they have to have core fiscal conservative values as well.

Which is why my definition holds true. You are either a conservative, or you are not. Usually what happens is when they get into office, they are neither.

But did being a conservative always mean holding strong religious beliefs or did it morph into that? I was always under the impression that a modern day conservative is more or less the modern term for a classical liberal.

It never did and does not now, you can be a social conservative without being strongly religious. Social conservativism has always gone hand and glove with Conservative.

You are playing using the lefts self serving and current establishment/country club Republican definition.

Posted: 7/13/2009 8:53:07 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:

conservative fiscally or conservative "don't let those queers marry!" socially?

You are either conservative, or your are not...............there is no hyphenated or qualifier needed.

All or nothing? Who gets to decide?

I'm not going to go through the litany of beliefs, but a conservative is one who believes in life, liberty, a strong and engaging military, the Constitution, a federal government that is small as possible as well as traditional American values.

a strong and engaging military does not equal a federal government that is small as possible.

Logic fail

Posted: 7/13/2009 8:55:18 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Sen.Tom Coburn
Congressman Mike Pence

And Jim DeMint

Posted: 7/13/2009 8:56:43 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

a strong and engaging military does not equal a federal government that is small as possible.

Logic fail

No logic to fail with

Sure it does equal that if a a strong and engaging military is needed. Can the Military be streamlined to some extent, sure it can but we need a strong and engaging Military.

Posted: 7/13/2009 8:56:52 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The only thing I don't like is when fiscal liberals slip into the Republican party under the guise of being Christian conservatives. I have no problem with those who have strong religious beliefs but they have to have core fiscal conservative values as well.

Which is why my definition holds true. You are either a conservative, or you are not. Usually what happens is when they get into office, they are neither.

But did being a conservative always mean holding strong religious beliefs or did it morph into that? I was always under the impression that a modern day conservative is more or less the modern term for a classical liberal.

No. I'm an atheist, but I also believe that life (more or less begins around the time of implantation to the uterine wall) should be protected, I also believe not only in abstinence education, but I think that sex ed, aside from biology should not be taught in government schools. Those are conservative beliefs, but it doesn't take religion to believe in them.

Similarly, a person could be a hard core evangelist and still be a libertarian.

Posted: 7/13/2009 8:57:30 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:
conservative fiscally or conservative "don't let those queers marry!" socially?

You are either conservative, or your are not...............there is no hyphenated or qualifier needed.

All or nothing? Who gets to decide?

I'm not going to go through the litany of beliefs, but a conservative is one who believes in life, liberty, a strong and engaging military, the Constitution, a federal government that is small as possible as well as traditional American values.

a strong and engaging military does not equal a federal government that is small as possible.

Logic fail

Yes it does.

Posted: 7/13/2009 8:57:41 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

The party isn't high-jacked by Christians, it has been hi-jacked by countryclub/Rockefeller Republicans. ie John McCain, Colin Powell, Susan Collins, Arnold Schwarzenegger. The media has just done a spectacular job in painting the picture that is those bigoted Christians, but fiscal conservatives and social conservatives have both been given the finger by the elite RINO's.

Completely agree, and I believe the national party bears a lot of the blame. When Snow, Collins and, until his defection, Specter, are allowed to flaunt the GOP platform with almost every vote of any consequence, and the national party smile and slaps them on the back, then there is a real problem. That problem is compounded when voters produce a conservative candidate who more closely represents their beliefs, and the national party continues its blind support of the incumbent.

Incumbency has become a disease.

Posted: 7/13/2009 8:57:53 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The only thing I don't like is when fiscal liberals slip into the Republican party under the guise of being Christian conservatives. I have no problem with those who have strong religious beliefs but they have to have core fiscal conservative values as well.

Which is why my definition holds true. You are either a conservative, or you are not. Usually what happens is when they get into office, they are neither.

But did being a conservative always mean holding strong religious beliefs or did it morph into that? I was always under the impression that a modern day conservative is more or less the modern term for a classical liberal.

It never did and does not now, you can be a social conservative without being strongly religious. Social conservativism has always gone hand and glove with Conservative.

You are playing using the lefts self serving and current establishment/country club Republican definition.

I'm not really saying I think that. I was more or less asking what others felt about how being conservative was portrayed. As I said I consider myself to be a conservative or at least have the majority of conservative views without being religious.

I think it is a lot different to be conservative or have my beliefs in CT then it is in TN or VA. There are plenty of us up here but unfortunately we are outnumbered by the left. Most of the time the best we can hope for are moderates who can go 70% in line with our views.

Posted: 7/13/2009 8:59:52 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
VTHOKIESHOOTER you should have know better, next time just yell food fight.

I'm trying to help people understand what a conservative is, and I'm being tarred and feathered if I point out something that is inaccurate.

What I don't understand is why people who have at least 70% of the issues in common can't get along, while the other side has united and is working to squash us like bugs.

People are acting as if evangelicals are tyrannical bigots, and the socially conservatives go ape shit when a person believes one should have the right to ingest any chemical they want, while evangelicals call you a satan worshipping heathen if you profess your belief in something other than Jesus.

We either need to unite under similar ideals or we shall all hang separately. We really do need to find a way to coexist, and reconcile and respect differences.

Because some people are convinced we need to go kicking the shit out of every douchebag around the planet who is sick of the US kicking the shit out of every douchebag around the planet. "American INTERESTS" should be Freedom for her own people. Period. That's what the fucking governments JOB is. Read the Constitution.
I am so sick and tired of these Monday Morning Constitutionalists saying that the US Military needs to be all around the world. Their job is to protect our LIBERTY.

Fine if some think we need bases everywhere....but how would you feel if the roles were reversed and Iraq, Germany, South Korea, etc had bases in our country?

Ron Paul has said numerous times he's for a strong national defense. But some people are so fucking gung-ho to kill everybody towel-jockey on the planet they can't get their minds wrapped around the idea of not dicking with everybody.

If you go walking up and down the street everyday, pushing people around because you're the strongest, toughest dude there is....there's always someone willing to take a shot at you. And sooner or later, they'll bleed your nose (9/11). Sometimes not messing with people for oil or whatever "American Interest" there is isn't such a stupid idea. And if you're a nice guy and somebody takes a shot at you, you kick his fuckin ass and walk away.

Posted: 7/13/2009 9:00:59 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Ron Paul

Yep.

Nope

I agree. Ron Paul is a libertarian.

"I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." Ronald Reagon

Posted: 7/13/2009 9:02:52 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I don't think that you would see Barry Goldwater (the father of conservatism) standing up to argue for gay marriage in '64, I don't think he would be for it. I also don't think that just because someone doesn't believe in gay marriage that they are automatically against freedom as you seem to imply.

I do agree though that government shouldn't dictate who can engage in contracts and who can't, that's what makes me a libertarian.

But this isn't an issue that needs to be in the fore front.

But you get it.

Gay marriage is a issue who sole purpose is as a tool to try and divide true Conservatives from normally allied libertarians. Libertarians had better wake up and realize they cannot have a fiscal Conservative in office by alienating true Conservatives. True Conservatives will give on some things but gay marriage will not be one of them, get used to the idea or be prepared to live with radical Democrats forever. Gay marriage is not a primary voting issue for anyone but the radical left and some loud libertarians so why act like is the only issue.

And yes true Conservatives are also social Conservatives.

Agree on all points except, one day, gays will be allowed to be married, and it will be accomplished by the democratic party, taking it completely off the table for debate, much like how inter-racial dating/marriage was in the '50's and 60's.

Also, Ron Paul is also against gay marriage. I guess he is just an anti-freedom tyrant too.[/quote]

Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[204][205] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."

Posted: 7/13/2009 9:03:00 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The only thing I don't like is when fiscal liberals slip into the Republican party under the guise of being Christian conservatives. I have no problem with those who have strong religious beliefs but they have to have core fiscal conservative values as well.

Which is why my definition holds true. You are either a conservative, or you are not. Usually what happens is when they get into office, they are neither.

But did being a conservative always mean holding strong religious beliefs or did it morph into that? I was always under the impression that a modern day conservative is more or less the modern term for a classical liberal.

It never did and does not now, you can be a social conservative without being strongly religious. Social conservativism has always gone hand and glove with Conservative.

You are playing using the lefts self serving and current establishment/country club Republican definition.

I'm not really saying I think that. I was more or less asking what others felt about how being conservative was portrayed. As I said I consider myself to be a conservative or at least have the majority of conservative views without being religious.

I think it is a lot different to be conservative or have my beliefs in CT then it is in TN or VA. There are plenty of us up here but unfortunately we are outnumbered by the left. Most of the time the best we can hope for are moderates who can go 70% in line with our views.

We agree, but you must understand religion in politics is attacked only when it involves conservatives. Note this is never a issues say for example political black churches or when the Methodist Counsel of Bishops or Catholic Church takes a political anti-war or pro illegal immigration stance.

Posted: 7/13/2009 9:03:42 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

You are probably right, my main point is for people who scream if you do not support gay marriage you are somehow anti-freedom, that is childish bullshit. Before anyone chimes in this is wrong I will remind you most of the proponents of gay marriage are about as anti-freedom as they get, this is undeniable.

Pointing out the left's mendacity on freedom does not absolve some portions of the right for having a scattershot definition freedom. Like I said before, the issue as whole is pretty unimportant, especially right now. And I am not trying to define someone who opposes gay marriage as some kind of freedom-hating fascist. I am simply using the issue to illustrate that sometimes those who wave the freedom flag hardest have an odd sense of what freedom entails.

Posted: 7/13/2009 9:05:59 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

We agree, but you must understand religion in politics is attacked only when it involves Conservatives. Note this is never a issues say for example over political black churches or when the Methodist Counsel of Bishops takes a political anti-war stance.

Don't even get me started on the Methodist hissy fit over the Bush library at SMU.

Posted: 7/13/2009 9:06:37 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
VTHOKIESHOOTER you should have know better, next time just yell food fight.

I'm trying to help people understand what a conservative is, and I'm being tarred and feathered if I point out something that is inaccurate.

What I don't understand is why people who have at least 70% of the issues in common can't get along, while the other side has united and is working to squash us like bugs.

People are acting as if evangelicals are tyrannical bigots, and the socially conservatives go ape shit when a person believes one should have the right to ingest any chemical they want, while evangelicals call you a satan worshipping heathen if you profess your belief in something other than Jesus.

We either need to unite under similar ideals or we shall all hang separately. We really do need to find a way to coexist, and reconcile and respect differences.

Because some people are convinced we need to go kicking the shit out of every douchebag around the planet who is sick of the US kicking the shit out of every douchebag around the planet. "American INTERESTS" should be Freedom for her own people. Period. That's what the fucking governments JOB is. Read the Constitution.
I am so sick and tired of these Monday Morning Constitutionalists saying that the US Military needs to be all around the world. Their job is to protect our LIBERTY.

Fine if some think we need bases everywhere....but how would you feel if the roles were reversed and Iraq, Germany, South Korea, etc had bases in our country?

Ron Paul has said numerous times he's for a strong national defense. But some people are so fucking gung-ho to kill everybody towel-jockey on the planet they can't get their minds wrapped around the idea of not dicking with everybody.

If you go walking up and down the street everyday, pushing people around because you're the strongest, toughest dude there is....there's always someone willing to take a shot at you. And sooner or later, they'll bleed your nose (9/11). Sometimes not messing with people for oil or whatever "American Interest" there is isn't such a stupid idea. And if you're a nice guy and somebody takes a shot at you, you kick his fuckin ass and walk away.

1) No one has said that your position is wrong, it just isn't a position of a conservative, quit trying to redefine something that fits your agenda.

2)If we don't have basis around the world, then you can bet your bottom dollar that someone else who has more nefarious goal will, and they will choke us with their noose. History has shown what happens if America doesn't stand firm in defense of liberty. You end up with WW2, you end up with a communist Cuba, you end up with half of Europe under Soviet rule, you end up with 9/11, you end up with an invasion of Kuwait.

We don't go around proclimating that you live this way or else. We act as a deterrent to the despots and tyrants of the world.

I'm willing to bet that South Korea right now is pretty damn grateful that we have troops there.

We also have bases in Germany and Japan because they declared war on us, and part of the spoils of war is that we set the rules for reconstruction. Pay back is a bitch. If Japan and Germany didn't want us there, then they shouldn't have attacked the free world.

Posted: 7/13/2009 9:07:15 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The only thing I don't like is when fiscal liberals slip into the Republican party under the guise of being Christian conservatives. I have no problem with those who have strong religious beliefs but they have to have core fiscal conservative values as well.

Which is why my definition holds true. You are either a conservative, or you are not. Usually what happens is when they get into office, they are neither.

But did being a conservative always mean holding strong religious beliefs or did it morph into that? I was always under the impression that a modern day conservative is more or less the modern term for a classical liberal.

It never did and does not now, you can be a social conservative without being strongly religious. Social conservativism has always gone hand and glove with Conservative.

You are playing using the lefts self serving and current establishment/country club Republican definition.

I'm not really saying I think that. I was more or less asking what others felt about how being conservative was portrayed. As I said I consider myself to be a conservative or at least have the majority of conservative views without being religious.

I think it is a lot different to be conservative or have my beliefs in CT then it is in TN or VA. There are plenty of us up here but unfortunately we are outnumbered by the left. Most of the time the best we can hope for are moderates who can go 70% in line with our views.

We agree, but you must understand religion in politics is attacked only when it involves Conservatives. Note this is never a issues say for example over political black churches or when the Methodist Counsel of Bishops takes a political anti-war stance.

Oh I fully agree that there is a double standard. A massive double standard. Bibles in schools = bad but Koran in schools = good or promoting tollorance.

I think we are basically on the same page. I'm just so used to hearing from the crowd that will write any candidate off if they do not share 110% of their personal views.

Posted: 7/13/2009 9:07:33 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Ron Paul

Yep.

Nope

I agree. Ron Paul is a libertarian.

"I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." Ronald Reagon

That is true, but they are not the same.

Posted: 7/13/2009 9:08:27 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:

You are probably right, my main point is for people who scream if you do not support gay marriage you are somehow anti-freedom, that is childish bullshit. Before anyone chimes in this is wrong I will remind you most of the proponents of gay marriage are about as anti-freedom as they get, this is undeniable.

Pointing out the left's mendacity on freedom does not absolve some portions of the right for having a scattershot definition freedom. Like I said before, the issue as whole is pretty unimportant, especially right now. And I am not trying to define someone who opposes gay marriage as some kind of freedom-hating fascist. I am simply using the issue to illustrate that sometimes those who wave the freedom flag hardest have an odd sense of what freedom entails.

Look anyone in my view who thinks marriage and freedom are consistent concepts is crazy to begin with.

Posted: 7/13/2009 9:10:40 AM EDT

[#44]

They're all dead.

Posted: 7/13/2009 9:10:49 AM EDT

[#45]

Rep Sam Johnson 3rd District Texas

Posted: 7/13/2009 9:13:33 AM EDT

[#46]

I define conservatism as the idea of promoting freedom and liberty and maintaining personal responsibility for one's own actions or inaction.

With this being said I pick:
Sarah Palin
Fred Thompson
My congressman Adam Putnam

Sure there are things with each one I do not agree with 100%, I agree more with them than against.