0
   

Any Proud Conservatives here?

 
 
cdunde1
 
Reply Sun 31 Jan, 2010 07:37 am
Hello,

My first day here and I'm glad that I found this site as I enjoy debating liberals on the reasons why liberalism and socialism will not and cannot work in our great freedom loving country. History will show that Scott Brown's unbelievable and awe-inspiring win in Mass started the nations aggressive move back to conservatism and the dumping of the far-left liberal agenda designed to turn us into a nanny state.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,893 • Replies: 31
No top replies

 
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 12:03 pm
@cdunde1,
There are a few, but they have not been in here lately. Conservatives in this group have been fighting an uphill battle.
NEUROSPORT
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 10:44 pm
@Fatal Freedoms,
Proud Libertarian ...
0 Replies
 
Anton Artaud
 
  2  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 06:57 pm
@cdunde1,
cdunde1;70154 wrote:
Hello,

My first day here and I'm glad that I found this site as I enjoy debating liberals on the reasons why liberalism and socialism will not and cannot work in our great freedom loving country. History will show that Scott Brown's unbelievable and awe-inspiring win in Mass started the nations aggressive move back to conservatism and the dumping of the far-left liberal agenda designed to turn us into a nanny state.


Any news savvy conservative can eat Liberals for appetizers any day. The major first reason is they will tell you they ignore facts. That does not interest them.

They base their position on egalitarianism which is blantly a bankrupt concept that has brought nothing but injustice and misery for generations while lining the pockets of its advocates.

Glad your with us.
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 03:51 pm
@Anton Artaud,
Anton Artaud wrote:
they ignore facts.

Who is ignoring facts here? You are calling them "liberals", the very doublespeak they invented to fool people. The fact is that they are illiberal statists, so you are ignoring facts by calling them liberals.
Pepijn Sweep
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 03:55 pm
@EmperorNero,
Liberal Democrats '66
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 05:14 pm
@cdunde1,
cdunde1 wrote:
Hello,

My first day here and I'm glad that I found this site as I enjoy debating liberals on the reasons why liberalism and socialism will not and cannot work in our great freedom loving country. History will show that Scott Brown's unbelievable and awe-inspiring win in Mass started the nations aggressive move back to conservatism and the dumping of the far-left liberal agenda designed to turn us into a nanny state.
Yes; I closely adhere, an Original American Orthodox,
to the US Constitution, because that is shooting straight,
and because the Constitution, with its Bill of Rights, is an Instrument of Personal Liberty.

I support the thawt of Barry Goldwater and of Ludwig von Mises.

The domestic power of government, and personal freedom of citizens are INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 05:17 pm
@Anton Artaud,
Anton Artaud wrote:

cdunde1;70154 wrote:
Hello,

My first day here and I'm glad that I found this site as I enjoy debating liberals on the reasons why liberalism and socialism will not and cannot work in our great freedom loving country. History will show that Scott Brown's unbelievable and awe-inspiring win in Mass started the nations aggressive move back to conservatism and the dumping of the far-left liberal agenda designed to turn us into a nanny state.


Any news savvy conservative can eat Liberals for appetizers any day. The major first reason is they will tell you they ignore facts. That does not interest them.

They base their position on egalitarianism which is blantly a bankrupt concept that has brought nothing but injustice and misery for generations while lining the pockets of its advocates.
Not even IDENTICAL TWINS are equal to each other.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 05:21 pm
@EmperorNero,
Anton Artaud wrote:
they ignore facts.
EmperorNero wrote:
Who is ignoring facts here? You are calling them "liberals", the very doublespeak they invented to fool people.
The fact is that they are illiberal statists, so you are ignoring facts by calling them liberals.
No; liberal means anti-orthodox; liberal means deviant.
To be liberal as to something, one must turn away
from the concept or body of rules, rather than adhere to it.

Non-deviation from a concept is conserving that concept.





David
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 05:29 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Anton Artaud wrote:
they ignore facts.
EmperorNero wrote:
Who is ignoring facts here? You are calling them "liberals", the very doublespeak they invented to fool people.
The fact is that they are illiberal statists, so you are ignoring facts by calling them liberals.
No; liberal means anti-orthodox; liberal means deviant.
To be liberal as to something, one must turn away
from the concept or body of rules, rather than adhere to it.

Non-deviation from a concept is conserving that concept.

David


Redefining words is the purpose of doublespeak. To most people "liberal" means pro-freedom, it has that sound to it. That's what it used to mean, and even though it was redefined, the word still has it's positive sound to it.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 05:45 pm
@EmperorNero,
Quote:

Redefining words is the purpose of doublespeak. To most people "liberal" means pro-freedom, it has that sound to it. That's what it used to mean, and even though it was redefined, the word still has it's positive sound to it.

The beauty of facts is you can provide support for them when asked.

OK..

When did "liberal" mean "pr0-freedom"?
What was it redefined to and when?

Don't confuse opinion with facts. It seems to be something some conservatives have a tendency to do.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 05:56 pm
@EmperorNero,
Anton Artaud wrote:
they ignore facts.
EmperorNero wrote:
Who is ignoring facts here? You are calling them "liberals", the very doublespeak they invented to fool people.
The fact is that they are illiberal statists, so you are ignoring facts by calling them liberals.
OmSigDAVID wrote:
No; liberal means anti-orthodox; liberal means deviant.
To be liberal as to something, one must turn away
from the concept or body of rules, rather than adhere to it.

Non-deviation from a concept is conserving that concept.

David
EmperorNero wrote:

Redefining words is the purpose of doublespeak.
To most people "liberal" means pro-freedom, it has that sound to it.
That's what it used to mean, and even though it was redefined, the word still has it's positive sound to it.
That sound comes from a variation of "liberty", as tho thay were LIBERTARIANS, which thay most certainly are not.
In America, liberals tend to be heavy-handed authoritarian-collectivists
who want government to USURP political power and to use it
to enforce an artificial equality.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 06:00 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
In America, liberals tend to be heavy-handed authoritarian-collectivists
who want government to USURP political power and to use it
to enforce an artificial equality.


Yawn...
And David tends to engage in over the top rhetoric.

I wonder whether my statement or David's is closer to the actual truth.
0 Replies
 
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 06:07 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
That sound comes from a variation of "liberty", as tho thay were LIBERTARIANS, which thay most certainly are not.
In America, liberals tend to be heavy-handed authoritarian-collectivists
who want government to USURP political power and to use it
to enforce an artificial equality.

Precisely. That's why I object to calling them liberals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Don't you get it, they redefined the word in order to hide behind it and confuse people, and you are using their doublespeak.
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 06:17 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
When did "liberal" mean "pr0-freedom"?

It still does in the rest of the world. It used to mean that in America as well a century ago.
Quote:
Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom"[1]) is the belief in the importance of liberty and equality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

parados wrote:
What was it redefined to

It was redefined to mean pro-change, i.e. socialist, statist; pro big government.
When conservatives say it they mean "those who want to change the constitution".

parados wrote:
and when?

It was changed around the time of the great depression.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 06:53 pm
@EmperorNero,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
That sound comes from a variation of "liberty", as tho thay were LIBERTARIANS, which thay most certainly are not.
In America, liberals tend to be heavy-handed authoritarian-collectivists
who want government to USURP political power and to use it
to enforce an artificial equality.
EmperorNero wrote:

Precisely. That's why I object to calling them liberals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Don't you get it, they redefined the word in order to hide behind it and confuse people, and you are using their doublespeak.
FORGIVE ME: I don 't wanna argue tit-for-tat, but MOST RESPECTFULLY, it is u who does not get it.

Thay are liberal by DEVIATING from the REFERENT. Liberal means deviant.
NON-deviant means orthodox or conservative or being honest and playing it STRAIGHT.

Liberalism is distortion, or veering away from something.

The whole point between being "right wing" orthodox or conservative
as distinct from being liberal, is whether or not one will DEVIATE from the norm.

Those who deviate are liberal
and those who do not are orthodox or conservative.

Whether that is good or bad depends upon WHAT
is being either conserved or being deviated from.

If the subject matter of the conservation is GOOD,
then deviation from it is bad.

If the subject matter of the conservation is bad,
then deviation from it is good.

For instance, when Hess flew to England without Hitler 's permission,
he was being liberal, deviating from nazism, therefore being good.

When Boris Yeltsin deviated from the communist party,
that was very good to be liberal because communism and nazism are bad.

On the other hand, if an accountant
deviates from sound accounting practices; that is bad.
IF a surgeon deviates from clean sanitary practices on-the-job, that is bad.

In common American parlance,
the subject matter of the conservation
by which conservatives and liberals are defined is the US Constitution
and its crippling limitations upon the domestic powers of government,
from which personal freedom derives.

Government jurisdiction and personal freedom are inversely proportional.
Conservatives are unwilling to deviate by increasing the domestic powers
of government over our own population.

Therefore, a lot depends on which norm is being deviated from.





David
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 07:03 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Liberalism is distortion, or veering away from something.


Liberal comes from the latin word for "free".
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberal
You can use it in the sense you speak of, but you can use any word in any meaning. Deviant is not the original meaning of the word. It originally meant being for freedom, and that's why liberals aren't liberal.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 07:18 pm
@EmperorNero,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Liberalism is distortion, or veering away from something.
EmperorNero wrote:

Liberal comes from the latin word for "free".
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberal
You can use it in the sense you speak of, but you can use any word in any meaning.
Deviant is not the original meaning of the word.
It originally meant being for freedom, and that's why liberals aren't liberal.
No; u r confusing the concepts of liberalism and libertarianism.

In the sense that u intend to use it, it means "taking liberties".

Conservative means keeping rigidly unbending in the enforcement of a rule,
or law, or agreement or some paradigm; accordingly, conservatives conserve
that rule or agreement or paradigm (e.g., a common style of dress).

Liberal means deviating from some rule, or law,
or agreement or some paradigm, and not taking it too seriously.

For instance,
if men are playing poker n one rakes in the pot
alleging that he has a flush, when he has 4 clubs and a spade,
and when challenged on this behavior, he declares
the liberal motto: " hay, that 's CLOSE ENUF; don 't be
too technical; don 't split hairs; just don t be a ball buster, OK ?
I had a fight with my cousin, yesterday I got a flat tire,
I belong to a minority group and my left foot stinks,
so gimme a break n deal the cards."

Hence, he advocates the position that logic shoud be SUBORDINATED to emotion
and that thay shoud take a LIBERAL VU
of the rules of poker because his sob story OUTRANKS
the technical rules requiring 5 cards of 1 suit for a flush.


"Conservative" means ORTHODOX.
"Conservative" means non-deviant.
"Liberal" means deviant.
Without having deviated from something no one can be liberal
because the essence of liberalism is turning away from something.

For instance, if u attend a formal banquet in a black tuxedo
with red sneakers, u deviate from the paradigm of formal dress,
thereby taking a liberal vu thereof. If u attend it in your underwear,
then u take a MORE LIBERAL interpretation of that paradigm.
If u attend it naked, then u apply a radical interpretation
( "from the root" ) of that paradigm.

Whether liberalism is good or bad
depends upon WHAT the liberal is veering away from.
Like when Boris Yeltsin veered away from communism, that was a GOOD thing.

Liberalism includes ANY kind of deviation,
in any direction of 360 degrees of arc + up n down.

There is no logical semantic constriction on liberalism
that it can only exist in the direction of collectivist-authoritarianism a/k/a socialism.
Deviation can be in the opposite direction or in any direction.





David
Pepijn Sweep
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 07:22 pm
YES SIR !

Can I have a GUN now ?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 07:24 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep wrote:

YES SIR !

Can I have a GUN now ?
Sounds good to me; what kind r u getting ?





David
 

Related Topics

I'm a newbie - Discussion by sarahjacobs01
nubee - Discussion by cathy22
Hello Everyone - Discussion by ruchisharma
I'm New! (: - Discussion by HayleyBoo
Hi.. Is this site good ? - Question by Majid
Hello Im new - Question by DonnaYeats
Starting A Thread Now! - Discussion by Gridfamiliar
Introduction - Question by harryblossom
An introduction new member - Question by carddna
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Any Proud Conservatives here?
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/03/2020 at 02:58:09