What's happening to Conservatism?

<Flame-baiting/Insults/Replies> he said the "majority of families".... what does that mean? Had he said a higher percentage then he would have been correct.

 

Oh,..
Sorry, I thought you had said, "The above claim is 100% inaccurate. Child abuse has been around since the dawn of humanity as has abusive parents in two parent homes. Where is your objectivity? I personally know people born before 1960 that were abused in two parent homes."

- - - Updated - - -

With their Mom, that would be good examples for the kids.

 

Once again, I refer to Webster's dictionary. "Majority" which was BrianBoo's quote means the following:

"a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total"

So once again.....why did he have to say "higher percentage"? That's already included in the definition of majority, which was the description Brian gave.....that you initially took issue with, <Flame-baiting/Insults/Replies>

 

<Flame-baiting/Insults/Replies> In every other country in the world Liberals are small government people. Not in the US.

 

And once again, you (like your buddy Bruno) refuse to recognize the definition of majority. How many times do I have to quote it directly from Webster's dictionary. It means by number OR percentage.

<Flame-baiting/Insults/Replies>

 

A somewhat welcome change I guess. Although, it depends on what "socially conservative" means. Opposition to abortion, same sex marriage, marijuana and stuff like that is not something I agree with, and more importantly, I think such positions are getting less and less support. I think conservatism ought to focus on other issues, because I think many potential conservatives are scared away by the "religious right". But I don't think conservatism should move away from traditional values, but they should not present them as being forced upon people, but instead just upholding them as worthwhile ideals to strive for. There's an important distinction there: wheter you MUST do something or wheter you OUGHT to. Conservatives should present traditional values as something you ought to follow, but you don't have to. This is the kind of conservatism I adhere to, and which I believe is the one which is the most viable kind. The kind which basically seeks a libertarian legal system, but combined with conservative traditional values: where you are free to do most things, but choose to do the right thing.

 

Fiscal conservatism will never change. We need smaller government, something this idiotic administration opposes with everything they have.

The more that people depend on government, the more control government has, and the happier they are.

It's a recipe for failure and bankruptcy. This administration believes they have an open checkbook, with total disregard for the ballooning debt and the future.

 

The "fault" is the feminism which started Welfare forever budgets as single women started amassing inside the cities until 73% were filled with bastard kids, all going, (occasionally), to a school where they did little,... and no one could change that.

 

You must not care, (or perhaps do not even realize), that Welfare pays women $40,000/annually to single mothers who have bastards children.

They stopped calling them bastards, perhaps because they are now born as half the new babies every year.
Or maybe because they know people have long known bastards were anti-social people.

If you not against abortions, same sex marriage, drugs, Welfare, etc., ... then you are letting the immoral sex purveyors teach people that these things are OK, and they hurt no one.

Religiou people are those who understand that gayness and straight sexual promiscuity hurts fatherless kids and produces large numbers of them.

 

You should not get to do anything illegal.

 

it's the religious right that been doing that, but wow, that seems to be off topic... lol

.

 

It is for problems like those that it is important to keep the traditional values, but forcing people to follow them doesn't help. For example, tell me, what good would it do to force women who do not want to have children, to have them anyways? Are those likely to make good parents, and thus good children? No, they are not. it is better they make that abortion.

 

In a word....it's getting old. As in elderly....fast.


61% of young REPUBLICANS support gay marriage rights.

The ideology will change or it will lose. Given the ambitious nature of Republican politicians?....I'm betting they'll go with the former over the latter.

 

Artistic censorship seems like a good idea when some things are potentially or clearly harmful to the kids.

We already have TV and Movies rating systems which at least try t warn parents.

But nakedness of the body, sexual promiscuity, even bad language, too, needs laws which condemn the general publication of these kinds of idea.
That adults may see them or legally acquire is fair.

But prohibition and punishments against adults who get kids to see such stuff is how it ought be.

 

?
There are pills to protect her from pregnancy, right?

But the actual issue has been that half the 4 million births today are illegitimate.
The abortions are 1.2 million annually, too.

Women are either raising fatherless kids or killing half of the too.

Society has something to say about rules and how babies are to be treated, since they are our next generation.
It is all up to what a woman wants to do, as if she rules over babies, and society has nothing to say about that.

 

Yep,...
And Ireland just OK'd the idea too.

But the effect on the kids adds to what the women have already made pre-marital sexual behavior do to them as fatherless children.

Kids don't get their two cents in, but they are people who suffer with this kind of adult irresponsibility.

 

Why do you want these women to be parents? Society does have a say, and society should try to have only good parents have children. Do you seriously think the aforementioned women would be good parents? They would not, as they either do not want kids, or are irresponsible.

 

As if often the case we don't see much in the way of actual analysis of what's going on and instead see attacks on the opposition. History is the best means of addressing what has happened with the Republican Party over the years.

First of all we need to draw a line of distinction between "conservative" and "social conservative" because they are not the same. Historically,

Republicans were "conservatives" that upheld the values upon which America was founded and, in fact, while being fiscally conservative were socially liberal prior to the 1970's. Republicans were instrumental in the Civil Rights movement under the adminstration of Eisienhower, JFK, and LBJ and it was their support in Congress that lead to landmark legislation like the Voting Rights Act of 1963. The "social conservatives" of the time were the racists of the Democratic Party in the Southern (former Confederate) states often referred to as the Dixiecrats.

Starting with the Nixon administration we saw a shift away from social liberalism and the transition from "conservative" to "social conservative" political values. We saw, for example, the racist social conservatives like David Duke (a former Grand Wizard of the KKK) switch from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party in 1980 as this political change from "conservative" to "social conservative" took place. We saw the rise of the "Religious Right" in the Republican Party that disparaged the Rights of the Person in favor of imposing theocratic beliefs in our laws (something Eisienhower warned us about). Remember that it was the Social Conservatives that lead the fight against homosexuality by laws prohibiting same-sex marriage starting in the 1970's because it offended their religious beliefs.

Starting in the 1970's under Nixon and fully manifesting itself under the Reagan adminstration we saw an all-out war against organized labor (that benefited the American People and lead to the expansion of the middle class during the 1950's and 1960's) to policies that benefited the owners of enterprise. While productivity per worker was increasing during the 1970's the compensation for that labor did not keep pace as more and more of the wealth creation was funneled into the pockets of the owners of enterprise. We went from the top 10% receiving less than 35% of the wealth (income from the GDP) in the 1960's to receiving about 50% today based upon the Republican economic agenda. Between 2009 and 2012 the top 1% saw their income increase by over 34% while the median wage for American households plummeted by 5% in real dollars since the Recession and that is all based upon favoritism for the owners of enterprise by the Republican Party that opposes the workers of America.

During the same time frame, starting in the 1960's, we've also seen a transition to secular humanism (the foundation for government in the United States) that is slowing winning the ideological war in America and making America a better nation. Many Republicans remained dedicated to the party based upon it's history from the 1950's and 1960's failing to see the transition from traditional "conservativism" (fiscally conservative and socially liberal) to "social conservatism" that is embraced by the Republican Party of today. Many have abandoned the Republican Party all together and this is probably best exemplified in it's early stages by the creation of the Libertarian Party in 1971 where some traditional "conservatives" realized that Nixon was abandoning traditional "conservative" values.

While the American people might be slow at times they are eventually pursuaded by compelling arguments and the logical arguments of secular humanism are superior to the arguments for "social conservativism" so there has been a steady decline in both the number of Americans that associate themselves with the Republican party as well as the beliefs of those that are still holding on to the Republican Party.

The declining support for "social conservative" political ideology, that the poll reflects, is merely a reflection of the fact that social conservatism cannot win in an ideological war with secular humanism.

There's the old saying, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time" and that is reflected by the changing political ideology of those in the Republican Party. The Pat Buchanan's, Ron Paul's, and Rick Perry's are failing because they're arguments cannot survive the test of what is right for America.

The Republican Party that has been based upon the social conservative ideology has failed morally, economically, and politically and more rank-in-file Republicans are becoming aware of that fact. For the most part they won't change their political party affiliation (they don't embrace the Democratic ideology) but they will eventually change the political ideology of the Republican Party. Those abandoning the "social conservative" ideology in favor of the "secular humanist" ideology are actually the hope for the Republican Party in the future.

 

Progress is inexorable.

A conspicuous example:

The Republican Party would do well to shift its fixation on people's crotches to their wallets.

 

This is an excellent indictment of "traditional Christian marriage" based upon misogyny.

An interesting counterpoint to traditional Christian marrage:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...pier-and-healthier-than-peers-research-shows/

 

It is always interesting that social conservatives disparage the term "progressive" considering the fact that the founders of America were the foremost progressive intellectuals of their time. If America was founded upon anything it was very progressive political thinking. The last thing the founders would want is for this nation to be stuck in the 18th, 19th, or 20th Centuries but that is exactly what the social conservatives advocate.

 

America's history is distinguished by continually advancing equality and inclusivity in pursuit of the Founders' vision. The original exclusive participatory franchise of White, propertied males has been expanded repeatedly, and there have been strident "regressives" in futile opposition to every advance that Americans make.

 

I'm utterly appalled by the fact that you would correlate Ron Paul's political positions with that of Pat Buchanan and Rick Perry. Why not just come out and join the Democratic Party, instead of engaging in false characterization attacks against others? Only someone utterly ignorant of the former longstanding House member's position would correlate these two. Either from a religious or political standpoint.

Buchanan and Perry are constitutionalists? They opposed the Iraq war? Besides the slander against one of America's longstanding libertarian propronents(while claiming to be a Libertarian yourself, which you're not), we have to take subject to the wish-washing history that the Democratic Party had ALWAYS been pure, and that it was just those "Southern Dixiecrats" who became the model of the Republican Party.

First of all, you cannot make the correlation of any party switching that dealt with the Civil Rights Legislation. This is because that just as some Democrats became Republican, other Republicans became Democrats. How could that be? How will you explain that in your wish-washing? You can't. Because it's Democratic Propaganda, but not the truth.

Furthermore, it was the Republican Party that embraced the movement. Given that the case, why would the Dixiecrats join the same party that embraced civil rights reform? Propaganda doesn't stand up to scrutiny and frankly, there hasn't been a time in world history where lies stood in the way of the truth. The truth has always stood in the way of lies.

For those interested in the truth of what has occurred in American Politics, allow me to give a more accurate account of history from one who was formerly a Liberal and henceforth understands the Propaganda that Shiva has used here. The reality is that the turning wheels against America occurred sometime around the 1970's, it's referred to as the New Left Revolution

The Revolution against American interests had begun to take its shape earlier, actually. As the cronyist FDR(not to be confused with the much more effective Teddy Roosevelt) advanced his New Deal by removing Justices he didn't like and installing puppet ones for him. These programs(among others by LBJ) have now outgrown our GDP and are costing us in terms of revenue.

So if you consider FDR's term as the start, then the Revolution has crept in over a 20 year period from FDR's administration, accumulating with Johnson's. With the occasional sanity provided to us in the form of Eisenhower(One of America's last great statesmen of the 20th/21st century) and even yes Richard Nixon would have been a great American President if he was less worried about the media and more focused on his job as POTUS.

There was and is a growing Corporatism in US Politics by this time(1980's), but it shouldn't be conflated with the Social Cons, who were less interested in that and more interested in gaining political power. The growing Corporatism acted independently of political interests, and in fact cleverly co-opted both political parties, as seen today(Hillary Rodham Clinton).

So it's a lie when Shiva states that corporatism was strictly a Reagan policy. No, the corporate parasite infested politics independently of party, but rather of its own money grubbing interests. So, how did this lie become prominent? How did the Left deceptively decieve you, wishwashing its own violent history and effectively co-opting political ideologies?

Through whitelisting tapes. Specifically, the infamous George Wallace tape on State Rights. George Wallace's position wasn't inherently racist, but that won't stop radical leftists from selectively editing out a few words and only letting you hear a portion of George Wallace's statement. LBJ practiced the same tactics, in smearing his opponent and lying his way to reelection.

His full and complete statement on the issue

The segregation issue was the starting point, but overall it was a defense of the 10th Amendment that George Wallace led. As he feared(the prophesized) central government which ironically today, a select portion of both Rightists and Leftists disapprove of. Perhaps, had we elected to the legislature to resolve the issues of segregation, we might not have had this problem.

This leads us to yet another interesting thing to ponder: Leftist totalitarianism, is it all the Left cries out to be? Not at all. In fact, if the Corporatist had his say he'd LOVE a centralized government in the form of the Soviets, or Mao Zedong's China. The elite get to escape the one child policy, while you are subject to the whims of the dictatorial State. While you're all impoverished as peasants(in the supposedly wealth redistributed state, see Modern day Cuba), the elite get to live comfortable lives.

From Communism/Marxism, you eventually get oligarchy. Think about it: The Left in America has instituted many social programs and the one time you got a Republican in(Bush), he signed a new Housing Agreement which led to the crisis.(as well as Medicaid D expansion). No, Liberalism should have none of its complaints. America has been very open to the failed social policies.

Mostly on the account of lies, whitewashing history, etc. Such is what Liberals do and always will do. You can always count on a Liberal to lie. Look for it, discern it. Maybe the Liberal isn't aware he's lying, he had been indoctrinated like everyone else.(Obama for example was a college student during those "great days"). But it's incumbent on people to discover for themselves what they believe., If one wants to continue sipping the elixir of lies, that's on them.

I went from Liberalism, to Libertarianism to a Fascist-Technocrat. All in search of the truth. Which is why I'm happy to provide you this counterance to Shiva's claims of the Leftist utopia of a fictional, small group of "dixiecrats" becoming the modern day GOP and ruining America for "all".

 

Same sex couples are very happy,... as long as No Fault Divorce remains an option they use in less than seven (7) years, when more than 70% of them divorce:

 

...me,...?

Why do I oppose Abortions...?
I don;t.

I encourage liberal women to kill their fatherless kids, too.
Welfare is already more than the Military Budget, at the current $1 Trillion dollars every year.
73% f the Black community is Welfare, so we see the cities now attacking the policeman, when their 10% of the population represents half the violent criminal element.

I want the sexual promotion of the Gays and the Feminists to stop producing fatherless children,...