I accept that you are assigning a different intent to my Rush post than what I intended and as I doubt I will change anybody's mind about my intent, I will hope that will drop. I will apologize for confusing people. My intent was not to be dishonest.
You're being held accountable for what you say. This is not about your intent being misunderstood.
You're retreating, but whatever. I have low expectations for you on owning up. People aren't confused.
I think you may have missed the point of the thread.
Here we go again. Nobody gets it but you...
It was my hope that we could discuss modern American conservatism.
The adverb "modern" seems to be the escape clause for accountability.
What it is.
Which IS the Republicans. Don't like that? You're the one voting for them. While you may want to redefine conservatism, there are others already doing it. They are called the GOP. They are active, they define it, not you.
What it isn't.
Accountable for anything.
What are its strengths.
What are its weaknesses.
And also how all that fits into the American culture--politics, society, business, commerce, the whole gamut.
But what you seem to reject is that it may not fit in the whole gamut. Maybe it only fits in a small niche.
I have strongly resisted allowing the numbnuts making this into another Bush-bashing or Republican-bashing thread. I am perfectly willing to discuss examples of what people see as conservatism that is bad or good or examples of modern liberalism that people see as bad or good.
The perfect examples of bad modern day conservatism you reject. Case and point, you flee from the example made by characters like Rush. If you are so willing to discuss this, you would simple acknowledge that he is an example, and a blemish at that.
The thread starter suggested that the Republicans got themselves into trouble with their constituency because they abandoned the conservative principles that put them into the majority. Some others disagreed with that but would never say why other than citing one poll that suggested differently.
A valid post, I remember it. However, you say dissenters never said why. Last time I addressed this with you, I went back and found Asherman's post directed at you which I think was the answer to your question. He alternatively proposed that conservatives had got themselves in trouble because they catered too much to the base. A sort of reminder of how small tent the group is.
I have tried again and again to provide some specific examples of what I think conservatism is and have a dialogue, but all that seems to generate is complaints about semantics or my examples are stupid or I don't have the right to define the terms used.
The problem with you defining terms is not your end product, it's that you insist that it's accepted. You have your idea of what conservatism is, so does Rush, but at the end of the day, the bottom line is your use of the terms.
So....I'm offering the rest of you an opportunity to come up with a different word you'll like better. That's all.
It's one you don't like, but despite not liking it, the fact is that modern American Conservatism is the Republican party. They certainly don't meet a classical definition, but I thought we are talking about "modern" times. Don't like it? You vote for them, your prerogative. You have cultivated this new modern conservatism, not me.