Compassion and the Republican Party of the USA
- Thread starter resurrection33
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
but...nobody explains what this means: conservative
So if one really wants people to know what they think, they have to start adding a mess of adjectives and qualifiers. It's a pain and one that people have talked about rectifying since the New Right formed in the 1950's and 1960's, but no one has really acted on.
Maybe they should work at getting themselves organised before they start pointing at others.
It isn't so much the finger pointing that annoys me so much as it is the baseless prattling that accompanies it. If I can point out, for example, that your presuppositions and opinions are flawed and diametrically opposed to mine, then fine. I had better be very careful in my formulations though.
I am not Fourierist. Say for a moment I thought you were, then I had better prove:
A. A Fourierist.
B. Your opinion is most assuredly based in Fourierism.
C. Fourierism is wrong either incorrect or morally abhorrent in these respects.
D. I have a viable and consistent alternative.
Few today seem to understand discretion is the better part of valor. That isn't only the conservatives.
Last edited:
A conservative..
rejects the ideal of change for change sake
believes that tradition has much value
believes that truth is not situational
believes in personal responsibility
believe in the principle of freedom where you have the God given right to act like a fool
believes in small government and more local input
believes taxes are bad and money in the hands of those who create jobs is good
believes life starts at creation
believes marriage is between a man and a woman
believes Israel is a nation under attack and in need of protection
believes in the sovereignty of the USA
believes George Bush was not a conservative but not evil incarnate either.
believes charity is something you do, not force on someone else.
How's that for the beliefs of conservatives??????
( I know we are still evil because we are smart enough to realize government programs only hurt people and lose jobs )
rejects the ideal of change for change sake
believes that tradition has much value
believes that truth is not situational
believes in personal responsibility
believe in the principle of freedom where you have the God given right to act like a fool
believes in small government and more local input
believes taxes are bad and money in the hands of those who create jobs is good
believes life starts at creation
believes marriage is between a man and a woman
believes Israel is a nation under attack and in need of protection
believes in the sovereignty of the USA
believes George Bush was not a conservative but not evil incarnate either.
believes charity is something you do, not force on someone else.
How's that for the beliefs of conservatives??????
( I know we are still evil because we are smart enough to realize government programs only hurt people and lose jobs )
If one wants a list of fundamental tenets, I think the wiser route would be to simply re-post what good old Kirk said.
The Ten Conservative Principles of Russell Kirk
Here we go again.
The Ten Conservative Principles of Russell Kirk
Here we go again.
I would say by Ritter's list I basically meet the definition of a Conservative, but not by Soninme's list. Interesting, although I've always been somewhat of a maverick (Not on the order of John McCain, just so we're clear.)
I am curious though. This is directed to anyone who disagrees with any or all of Russel Kirk's principles. Which ones do you disagree with, and why? They seem to be generally sound principles, but I'd love to hear from someone from the other side of the debate.
Since all you conservatives are now all on the same page. Do you agree with this American Conservative publications.
Will Israel Go Fascist?
Will Israel Go Fascist? | The American Conservative
The article details the dealings between Israel and Palestine which are not pleasant, mildly putting it. The massacre of civilians and the forced march of survivors is one disgusting bit of history raised. This conservative publication may well believe others are under attack and need to be protected.
Will Israel Go Fascist?
Will Israel Go Fascist? | The American Conservative
The article details the dealings between Israel and Palestine which are not pleasant, mildly putting it. The massacre of civilians and the forced march of survivors is one disgusting bit of history raised. This conservative publication may well believe others are under attack and need to be protected.
A lot of that article is bogus. Sure, some of it may be true, but it's also misleading. I would argue that official Israeli policy has nothing to do with ethnic cleansing. In fact there are Arab Israelis who have the same power to vote as Jewish Israelis. I feel that the main reason Israel restricts Palestinian Arab citizenship is in order to preserve a Jewish state. If Israel were wholly anti-apartheid, then there would be an influx of Muslim Arabs into the Jewish state and the Jews would lose control of their last redoubt. Then the violent history of pogroms, restrictions, persecution and hollocaust would repeat itself, especially given the hatred of the Arabs for the Jews. Note that when the United Nations sought a two state solution, one state was for the Arabs and the other was for the Jews. The Jews have that apartheid nation out of necessity, as recognized by the UN. Why call it racist or ethnic cleansing when it's purpose is simple self-preservation? By the way, "ethnic cleansing" is a little harsh of a term for preservation of a Jewish identity. America has many Native American reservations that could be called "apartheid" because of their favor of Native Americans. But I wouldn't want them to give up their last bastion for cultural and ethnic preservation. I think Jozoz said it best:
My only disagreement with what Jozoz has said is that the Arabs started the '67 War. While it has already been recognized through documentation that Egypt was amassing forces specifically for the purpose of attacking Israel and thus starting the '67 War, Israel technically started the war with a pre-emptive strike.
My only disagreement with what Jozoz has said is that the Arabs started the '67 War. While it has already been recognized through documentation that Egypt was amassing forces specifically for the purpose of attacking Israel and thus starting the '67 War, Israel technically started the war with a pre-emptive strike.
Conservatives are not and cannot be, by principle, bigots. We judge by charactor, or more basic, by your ability to add to society in a number of ways. We see ability, not skin color or ethnicity, unlike liberals and those too ashamed to call themselves liberals, the ''moderates'', who judge solely by pigments and where you were born.
In fact to call a conservative bigoted is, for all leftists, hypocritical.
In fact to call a conservative bigoted is, for all leftists, hypocritical.
A consumer has no economic value if he has...nothing to buy, or no money to purchase.
Without a job a consumer is taking funds from those who create jobs through a welfare check, killing job opportunities and spending tax dollars that is filtered through a wasteful government system where it takes two dollars for him to spend one ( an approximation for analogy ).
How does someone buy something? Well, he has to have a job. There must be a product he needs or wants. Jobs are created when someone sticks his neck out with an idea to market and sell a product he thinks people will buy.
He invests, he borrows, he works long hours and sacrifices and comes up with a successful business.....
that hires me....so I can in turn buy products which keep others employed.
Competition. Ideals. Hard work.
True conservative ideals....and the reason why there are liberals. Its a tough sell, integrity and sweat. That's why conservatives are vilified.
IT'S EASIER TO BE LIBERAL.
Too bad easy is as often as not bad for you.
Without a job a consumer is taking funds from those who create jobs through a welfare check, killing job opportunities and spending tax dollars that is filtered through a wasteful government system where it takes two dollars for him to spend one ( an approximation for analogy ).
How does someone buy something? Well, he has to have a job. There must be a product he needs or wants. Jobs are created when someone sticks his neck out with an idea to market and sell a product he thinks people will buy.
He invests, he borrows, he works long hours and sacrifices and comes up with a successful business.....
that hires me....so I can in turn buy products which keep others employed.
Competition. Ideals. Hard work.
True conservative ideals....and the reason why there are liberals. Its a tough sell, integrity and sweat. That's why conservatives are vilified.
IT'S EASIER TO BE LIBERAL.
Too bad easy is as often as not bad for you.
Perhaps. Perhaps in the sense that there is truly no "Middle East" and yet people continue to use the term. It's kind of like asking someone, "Where's the Orient? What countries are included?" In the past anything from Egypt to India was included in the "Orient." But the concept changes with time. There's likewise a general idea of where "liberal" and "conservative" stand on the social map. But everyone has their own opinion on it. For instance, liberals will generally argue for taking one's rights away with regard to ownership of guns for the "sake of the children." But then they'll turn around and argue for the right to choose whether or not to let a child live with regard to abortion. You never see any liberal pro-choice banners that say, "For the children!" but the general consensus is, "They're not human!"
Then you have a lot of liberals supporting the right to smoke marijuana even if they, themselves, don't like the idea. But then when questioned on other drug issues they might tell you, "They should remain illegal." Or some liberals might say, "Homosexual marriage should be a right," but they'll turn around and say, "State-approved marriage doesn't mean anything. Marriage is just a meaningless ceremony. It all depends on one's heart." So if there's a common thread here it's difficult to find. So then what makes a liberal? We only know how to define it in contemporary terms. But those terms may change in the future. This is similar to conservatism, because certainly what it has meant to be a conservative has changed with time as some traditions fade out and others are preserved. But even then it would be difficult to make this point from the web page that you had given me, because Jozoz made the point that this seemed like a fairly left-wing article. And I tend to agree. That is, the language and arguments found in the article bluntly defy most contemporary conservative trends.
Then you have a lot of liberals supporting the right to smoke marijuana even if they, themselves, don't like the idea. But then when questioned on other drug issues they might tell you, "They should remain illegal." Or some liberals might say, "Homosexual marriage should be a right," but they'll turn around and say, "State-approved marriage doesn't mean anything. Marriage is just a meaningless ceremony. It all depends on one's heart." So if there's a common thread here it's difficult to find. So then what makes a liberal? We only know how to define it in contemporary terms. But those terms may change in the future. This is similar to conservatism, because certainly what it has meant to be a conservative has changed with time as some traditions fade out and others are preserved. But even then it would be difficult to make this point from the web page that you had given me, because Jozoz made the point that this seemed like a fairly left-wing article. And I tend to agree. That is, the language and arguments found in the article bluntly defy most contemporary conservative trends.
Last edited:
I should specify that it defies most contemporary conservative trends in the USA. But conservatism is defined differently in other countries. For example, in England a left-wing socialist might consider themselves conservative while thinking that only the few radical Communists in their country are leftists. Different countries have different traditions and views of conservatism/liberalism. And it's important to understand that, especially when there is a "conservative" website online where anyone in the world who identifies with conservatism may join.
This has been an eye opening thread. I treated it as a bit of a joke I confess but some people really take this conservative, liberal labels very seriously. Maybe it is a US thing. For me the most important thing is to be open minded. Make your stand on where the evidence takes you not where your orientation dictates.