Does The Right Need To Be Redefined?

[Newell Steamer]

We've reached a breaking point frankly.

The side of the American political spectrum referred to as Conservative is anything but.

It is rife with people who decry big government involvement, yet issue demands on par with big government:
- not allowing a woman to do what she wishes with her body
- not allowing two adults to do as they wish in the privacy of their own home
- not abandoning those who are seeking government hand outs and are fully capable of supporting themselves.

The American Conservative is nothing more than a temperamental raging child that needs to be put to bed. I don't know what to call them. But, they sure as hell aren't Conservative.

Who is the real Conservative? Who is the Conservative that believes in Jesus? Who is the Conservative that applies the compassion of their very spiritual beliefs - but, does not enforce their spiritual beliefs?

Again, not what we've seen in the news, GOP, these forums or sometimes in real life. I have met quite a few Conservative in real life, that are pretty much synced with my beliefs.

This is what I believe:
1) In Jesus. But, I do not expect you, or anyone else to believe in Jesus. I sure as hell will call out those who pick up His name and religion for the sake of them bashing someone else. And, I believe in helping out those in need, just as Jesus has taught. Also, Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuals - let's get that straight.
2) Gun ownership. But, I do not believe we should walk around with assault rifles - it's just plain stupid. I should be allowed to carry a fire arm, a handgun, if I wish to. However, we don't live in a war torn nation where a rifle is necessary for our well being and survival. Plus, we got rid of the British monarchy's influence quite a while back.
3) No government involvement/help for those that are capable. Are you a corporation that hires million dollar CEOs and other executives to run your company? Yes, well, you aren't getting jack shit from the government. If you are in the red, use the millions of dollars you spent on executive leadership to get you back in black. Are you a family that just hit hard times? Yes, well, I am more than happy to help with government programs - to better your family's life (see #1 on why).
4) On the topic of abortion - see #1 again. And, think about the whole "he who has committed no sin cast the first stone" teaching of Jesus. It is not our place to demonize or judge someone's personal choice - period. It is up to God frankly.
5) I believe in freedom of speech. You should be allowed to say what you want - however, you are not protected from the immediate or long term consequences; it is impossible. Just as it is impossible to sensor speech (as we've seen many times), it is impossible to stop an African American from caving your skull in after you call him the n-word. He deserves to be arrested for assaulting you. But, don't expect a police officer to magically show up in the middle of Harlem at 3am just as you utter the last syllable of the n-word.

Most of what I believe in is a compromise. The extreme is not obtainable. Nor, would I want the extreme to be obtainable, since society and humanity itself is quite fluid. Things change. Things progress. Things are updated.

Grasping onto the past is no different than that same sleepy temperamental brat I noted earlier, grasping onto the stairs banisters as you physically drag them off to bed.

So, does the Right need to be redefined? Is the Right really not the Right, but rather some unhinged emotional lunatic that lives off of irrational fears and emotions who grasps at anything to 'defend' themselves - while in doing so, they just end up ruining the very thing they claim they are trying to preserve?

WHAT SAY YOU!?

 

[BoberFett]

Do Democrats rub one out every night thinking about Republicans? It seems to be the only thing on their minds.

 

[Greenman]

I think you're confused about what a conservative is. Or perhaps I am.

 

[Fayd]

not that i agree with the typical right stance on the issue, but on the issue of abortion, casting it it solely as "interfering with a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body" ignores the notion of the "right to life" of the unborn fetus.

since you decided to make a religous reference, even the most cursory browsing of the bible will reveal several passages that would incite a person who believes said fetus is a person to oppose abortion on those grounds.

quick googling yields proverbs 31:8.

"Speak out on behalf of the voiceless, and for the rights of all who are vulnerable."

I believe if you don't understand the opposing side's argument(s), then you don't belong in the discussion.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Do Democrats rub one out every night thinking about Republicans? It seems to be the only thing on their minds.

You mean like how you yourself brought up rubbing one out every night?

Pst,.. you are looking in the mirror again and confusing with what you see as it being something other than yourself.

 

[Newell Steamer]

not that i agree with the typical right stance on the issue, but on the issue of abortion, casting it it solely as "interfering with a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body" ignores the notion of the "right to life" of the unborn fetus.

since you decided to make a religous reference, even the most cursory browsing of the bible will reveal several passages that would incite a person who believes said fetus is a person to oppose abortion on those grounds.

quick googling yields proverbs 31:8.

"Speak out on behalf of the voiceless, and for the rights of all who are vulnerable."

I believe if you don't understand the opposing side's argument(s), then you don't belong in the discussion.

Nope.

It is in reference to the dumb - aka, those who can not literally speak.

 

[Moonbeam]

A conservative is somebody who wants to use government force to keep people from doing what is evil but wants to prevent evil people from using the government to obstruct the good, and also has no idea what good and evil are and is also totally oblivious of that fact.

 

[ivwshane]

I've already redefined the definitions to match political agendas.

Conservative = pretty much non existent in terms of a public body of people who espouse conservative ideals (on this board I'd probably call realibrand a conservative). They are the ones that want traditional values and a smaller government, and lower taxes they are also willing to compromise to further their agenda. Their core beliefs are contradicted by their support for a robust military and the spending that comes with it, and they are ok with brining home pork to their districts.

Republicans = these are the people that put party before country. John boehner, Mitch McConnell come to mind (on this board I'd put werepossum in this category and even he's more towards the fringe). These are the "new" conservatives whose principals change depending on what the polls say. They are the ones that talk about small government but do everything but support that through their actions. Compromising is something done for political gain. These are the politicians who like to pretend they are getting things done while actually doing nothing.

Then you have the new kids on the block, the righties = these are the same people that make up the 25% people that supported bush no matter what. Examples of righties in political power would be your ted cruzes and Glenn beck and on these boards people like michael1980, nostareofmind and a buttload of others. These are people whose policy foundation is held up by conspiracy theory, ignorance, and either a complete lack of understanding of any subject or a mental insulation from facts. These people used to be known as everyone's crazy uncle but as baby boomers aged they became more abundant until they went mainstream and gained notoriety as the tea party. Their policies are black and white, their are no gray areas and therefore they don't comprise no matter the negative impact on their goals. To put it simply, they are ideologues and in the face of contrary facts they simply put up a bigger defense. These are the type of people that make the government watch list.


That's how I classify the right side of the spectrum.

 

[brycejones]

I wouldn't put nostateofmind in the rightie category. He hates government, he is more of anarcho capitalist type of which there are a few around here.

 

[Newell Steamer]

I wouldn't put nostateofmind in the rightie category. He hates government, he is more of anarcho capitalist type of which there are a few around here.

This is a pretty spot on title.

:thumbsup:

 

[MongGrel]

Do Democrats rub one out every night thinking about Republicans? It seems to be the only thing on their minds.

I'm actually a pretty conservative Democrat, and have plenty of guns and a Marine.

You figure it out.

You seem to have a tendency to say stupid things a lot, thought I'd ask.

 

[MongGrel]

I've already redefined the definitions to match political agendas.

Conservative = pretty much non existent in terms of a public body of people who espouse conservative ideals (on this board I'd probably call realibrand a conservative). They are the ones that want traditional values and a smaller government, and lower taxes they are also willing to compromise to further their agenda. Their core beliefs are contradicted by their support for a robust military and the spending that comes with it, and they are ok with brining home pork to their districts.

Republicans = these are the people that put party before country. John boehner, Mitch McConnell come to mind (on this board I'd put werepossum in this category and even he's more towards the fringe). These are the "new" conservatives whose principals change depending on what the polls say. They are the ones that talk about small government but do everything but support that through their actions. Compromising is something done for political gain. These are the politicians who like to pretend they are getting things done while actually doing nothing.

Then you have the new kids on the block, the righties = these are the same people that make up the 25% people that supported bush no matter what. Examples of righties in political power would be your ted cruzes and Glenn beck and on these boards people like michael1980, nostareofmind and a buttload of others. These are people whose policy foundation is held up by conspiracy theory, ignorance, and either a complete lack of understanding of any subject or a mental insulation from facts. These people used to be known as everyone's crazy uncle but as baby boomers aged they became more abundant until they went mainstream and gained notoriety as the tea party. Their policies are black and white, their are no gray areas and therefore they don't comprise no matter the negative impact on their goals. To put it simply, they are ideologues and in the face of contrary facts they simply put up a bigger defense. These are the type of people that make the government watch list.


That's how I classify the right side of the spectrum.

+1

And yeah military spending on busted programs over the years has gotten stupid on a side note.

 

[Fayd]

Nope.

It is in reference to the dumb - aka, those who can not literally speak.

If you can't see the validity of the passage, then you are blind.

 

[Greenman]

I've already redefined the definitions to match political agendas.

Conservative = pretty much non existent in terms of a public body of people who espouse conservative ideals (on this board I'd probably call realibrand a conservative). They are the ones that want traditional values and a smaller government, and lower taxes they are also willing to compromise to further their agenda. Their core beliefs are contradicted by their support for a robust military and the spending that comes with it, and they are ok with brining home pork to their districts.

Republicans = these are the people that put party before country. John boehner, Mitch McConnell come to mind (on this board I'd put werepossum in this category and even he's more towards the fringe). These are the "new" conservatives whose principals change depending on what the polls say. They are the ones that talk about small government but do everything but support that through their actions. Compromising is something done for political gain. These are the politicians who like to pretend they are getting things done while actually doing nothing.

Then you have the new kids on the block, the righties = these are the same people that make up the 25% people that supported bush no matter what. Examples of righties in political power would be your ted cruzes and Glenn beck and on these boards people like michael1980, nostareofmind and a buttload of others. These are people whose policy foundation is held up by conspiracy theory, ignorance, and either a complete lack of understanding of any subject or a mental insulation from facts. These people used to be known as everyone's crazy uncle but as baby boomers aged they became more abundant until they went mainstream and gained notoriety as the tea party. Their policies are black and white, their are no gray areas and therefore they don't comprise no matter the negative impact on their goals. To put it simply, they are ideologues and in the face of contrary facts they simply put up a bigger defense. These are the type of people that make the government watch list.


That's how I classify the right side of the spectrum.

How can you walk around with such a twisted point of view? Seems like you should fall over a lot.

 

[ivwshane]

How can you walk around with such a twisted point of view? Seems like you should fall over a lot.

By all means counter with your own facts or provide your own opinion as to why your opinion is better than my opinion.

 

[Newell Steamer]

If you can't see the validity of the passage, then you are blind.

It clearly speaks about the dumb - since MANY translations refer to the dumb and mute.

Be a real man and stop hiding behind the Bible to bash women and destroy free will, you coward.

 

[Angry Irishman]

Both sides need redefined.....

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I don't even know if its a problem however I am all for discussing it.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Both sides need redefined.....

What does the Left do or not do, according to its ideology?

My personal observations are that the Left isn't pragmatic. They make demands and edicts that are impossible to enforce. And they back fire or fail.

 

[sandorski]

not that i agree with the typical right stance on the issue, but on the issue of abortion, casting it it solely as "interfering with a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body" ignores the notion of the "right to life" of the unborn fetus.

since you decided to make a religous reference, even the most cursory browsing of the bible will reveal several passages that would incite a person who believes said fetus is a person to oppose abortion on those grounds.

quick googling yields proverbs 31:8.

"Speak out on behalf of the voiceless, and for the rights of all who are vulnerable."

I believe if you don't understand the opposing side's argument(s), then you don't belong in the discussion.

Like any attempt by the Pro-Life to make a Biblical argument for their position, this is a case of epic Mental Gymnastics. The Bible speaks directly on the issue of Abortion, which strangely Pro-Lifers never address. In that the motivation for the Abortion is a Husbands suspicion that his Wife has cheated on him, "Bitter Water" is the Abortificient, the Priest is the one who Administers it.

Biblically, abortion is the Man's choice. We more Modern and Ethical people recognize it as the Woman's choice, for she is no longer just Property, but is actually as much a Person as a Man.

 

[Moonbeam]

Like any attempt by the Pro-Life to make a Biblical argument for their position, this is a case of epic Mental Gymnastics. The Bible speaks directly on the issue of Abortion, which strangely Pro-Lifers never address. In that the motivation for the Abortion is a Husbands suspicion that his Wife has cheated on him, "Bitter Water" is the Abortificient, the Priest is the one who Administers it.

Biblically, abortion is the Man's choice. We more Modern and Ethical people recognize it as the Woman's choice, for she is no longer just Property, but is actually as much a Person as a Man.

Is that really fair to bring up something like that before all the nut cases were convinced to abandon tradition to vote pro wealthy by calling Democrats murderers? Have some sympathy for poor Fayd, there. He doesn't have enough brain cells to handle the notion that a woman has a right to choice and the right to life are secularly balanced in the Roe v. Wade decision. Conservative brain defectives don't like gray.

 

[JulesMaximus]

As long as republicans hold onto the abortion issue and continue to tie religion to politics I will NEVER vote for them again in my lifetime.

 

[JulesMaximus]

not that i agree with the typical right stance on the issue, but on the issue of abortion, casting it it solely as "interfering with a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body" ignores the notion of the "right to life" of the unborn fetus.

since you decided to make a religous reference, even the most cursory browsing of the bible will reveal several passages that would incite a person who believes said fetus is a person to oppose abortion on those grounds.

quick googling yields proverbs 31:8.

"Speak out on behalf of the voiceless, and for the rights of all who are vulnerable."

I believe if you don't understand the opposing side's argument(s), then you don't belong in the discussion.

That has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. That passage is referring to the destitute, the poor and the needy. Something republicans couldn't possibly care less about.

 

[JSt0rm]

ideology is what drives them. You will never have them redefine the party. We need something else.

 

[Atreus21]

I think it was werepossum or someone other righty on this board who put it best.

Conservatives want to control what you do.
Liberals want to control what you do and what you think.