POL Conservatives: It's time to change the moniker.
- Thread starter The Cub
- Start date
223shootersc
Veteran Member
I can only add, Thank You for the message. It is powerful...
TKO
Veteran Member
The left love paying taxes, though. They'd call themselves taxpayers. But they would not call themselves patriots.
naegling62
Veteran Member
Patriots.. agreed.
All4liberty
Senior Member
U.S. Constitution Party would work better for me.
Normallguy
"just a human bein'"
I refer to myself as a Constitutionalist.
It may not be a real word but, it is clearly understood.
It may not be a real word but, it is clearly understood.
jed turtle
a brother in the Lord
Before there was a Constitution, there were Patriots...
Mr. Peabody
Veteran Member
Definition of patriot:
a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors. (foreign or domestic)
Patriots take up arms
a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors. (foreign or domestic)
Patriots take up arms
Dobbin
Faithful Steed
And dare I say AFTER a Constitution there will still be Patriots?
But "they" won't call you that.
Dobbin
jed turtle
a brother in the Lord
Even Jesus asked if there would be faith left before He returns.
we each must decide what is truly “right”, and after concluding the answer to that question, acting on that decision.
et2
Has No Life - Lives on TB
What’s a “patriot”? What’s a “conservative”? A Republican? A liberal? A libertarian? (Plus a brief Davenport, Part 14) – THE GOLDEN HAMMER
What’s A “Patriot”? What’s A “Conservative”? A Republican? A Liberal? A Libertarian? (Plus A Brief Davenport, Part 14)
adminJuly 2, 2017
What’s a patriot?
The Associated Press wrote the following about Ronald Reagan in 2004:
That’s a “patriot.”
There aren’t many patriots around anymore, because it seems so many people feel hatred for others who disagree with them. People who express hatred towards President Donald Trump are not patriots. He’s the President. He may disagree with you but none of his actions would indicate the slightest dislike of the nation in which he enjoyed his successes (and his failures).
Who is an example of a non-patriot? Michelle Obama during the 2008 election when she expressed that she was “ashamed of my country.” That’s not patriotism by definition.
What’s a conservative?
Senator Barry Goldwater wrote his classic book, The Conscience of a Conservative, in 1960. It ignited the modern conservative movement in the United States, was a bestseller, and helped to inspire Ronald Reagan and many others to enter politics. Goldwater was a transformative figure and political thinker throughout his United States Senate career spanning from 1953 to 1987.
Goldwater wrote:
Goldwater was a conservative. Reagan strived to be a conservative. Arguably, political activist Kelli Cook of Montgomery is a conservative.
So-called “social conservatives” are often not conservatives at all especially where they fight for bigger government. A great example of the conflict between “social conservatives” and real conservatives arose in Montgomery County when a group of people called for a committee to censor books in the public library. That’s not conservative. That’s calling for bigger government. Similarly, when the American Library Association seeks to direct which books should appear in public libraries, they’re not conservative either. (Could the problem be public libraries?)
Under the foregoing definition of “conservative,” Goldwater would not call any of the members of the Montgomery County Commissioners Court “conservative,” with the possible exception of Precinct 3 County Commissioner James Noack.
What’s a Republican?
It’s easy to find the answer, although it might take some time to figure the answer out. The definition of a “Republican” lies within the Platform of the Republican Party. Since we live in the State of Texas, the Republican Party of Texas Platform is the definition of a Republican.
You might retort: a “Republican” is anyone who wins the Republican Primary Election. The tens of thousands of Republican activists who worked very hard in Precinct, Senatorial, and State Republican Conventions to craft the current Platform would likely disagree. Just because democrats Malcolm Purvis and Craig Doyal switched political parties, on their stated ground that “we want to win,” and just because they did win, that doesn’t make them “Republican.” That only means that they won an election.
Their actions after they won the election are the true judge of whether they’re “Republican.”
Interestingly, looking at the voting records of the five members of the Montgomery County Commissioners Court, it’s fairly easy to identify the “Republicans.” Noack is clearly a Republican. Precinct 4 County Commissioner Jim Clark is the next closest to voting as a Republican. Doyal, Riley and Precinct 1 County Commissioner Mike Meador are Republicans in name only (“RINOs”).
What’s a liberal?
A classic 19th century “liberal” was someone who believed that government has limited functions: national security, public safety, and contract enforcement. Economist Milton Friedman was a “liberal” under that definition. 7th Circuit U.S. Appeals Judge Richard Posner was a “liberal” under he became a judge and the power seems to have gone to his head.
A modern “liberal” is quite different from the classical variety. A modern “liberal” is someone who believes that government is the solution to problems. Are there any modern liberals in Montgomery County? Doyal, Riley, and Meador are prime examples.
What’s a libertarian?
Sadly, “libertarians” are not classical “liberals” nor are they “conservatives.” They’re an odd political party that seems to be a strange version of modern liberals, even though many of their members would vehemently disagree. Gary Johnson was just strange as the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate. Former Republican William Weld, who had served as Governor of Massachusetts, is nothing other than a modern “liberal.”
What are the Davenports and their cronies?
The Golden Hammer, Montgomery County’s leading daily newspaper, has received several hundred requests on its tipline requesting more in the series about the Davenports, Marc and Stephanne.
Marc and Stephanne Davenport have no ideology. They just want power and money. That’s an anti-ideology, although modern “liberalism” seems to fit nicely with those types of people. Some of their “enforcers” seem to follow the same “principles”: Wayne Mack and Judge James Metts. They want power and seem willing to do just about anything to get it. Precinct 4 Justice of the Peace candidate, who is otherwise reputed to be a pretty good guy, seems to follow orders.
Rand Henderson, the Sheriff, and Rowdy Hayden, the Precinct 4 Constable, seem to have set themselves somewhat apart ideologically, although Henderson at least “tows the line” for his Davenport boss.
A philosophy of “the end justifies the means” would seem to be Machiavellian and little else (although Nicolo Machiavelli was far more principled than his historical reputation.)
“Conservative, County Spending, Davenport, Liberal, Libertarian, Patriot, Republican
What’s A “Patriot”? What’s A “Conservative”? A Republican? A Liberal? A Libertarian? (Plus A Brief Davenport, Part 14)
adminJuly 2, 2017
What’s a patriot?
The Associated Press wrote the following about Ronald Reagan in 2004:
Reagan adored the United States of America. He loved the American people, even those who disagreed with his political beliefs or policies. His adoration and love never ended.
That’s a “patriot.”
There aren’t many patriots around anymore, because it seems so many people feel hatred for others who disagree with them. People who express hatred towards President Donald Trump are not patriots. He’s the President. He may disagree with you but none of his actions would indicate the slightest dislike of the nation in which he enjoyed his successes (and his failures).
Who is an example of a non-patriot? Michelle Obama during the 2008 election when she expressed that she was “ashamed of my country.” That’s not patriotism by definition.
What’s a conservative?
Senator Barry Goldwater wrote his classic book, The Conscience of a Conservative, in 1960. It ignited the modern conservative movement in the United States, was a bestseller, and helped to inspire Ronald Reagan and many others to enter politics. Goldwater was a transformative figure and political thinker throughout his United States Senate career spanning from 1953 to 1987.
Goldwater wrote:
Goldwater explained:
Even back in 1960, Senator Goldwater evaluated the worth of government with respect to the direct freedom it takes away from the individual:
Goldwater made clear that conservativism did not include those, like Charlie Riley and Craig Doyal, who try to justify more government spending as a spur for “economic growth.” That’s not conservative. That’s what we refer to as “LIBERAL” in the United States. The Senator wrote:
In other words, even 57 years ago, people like Riley and Doyal were around who tried to usurp “conservative” principles by claiming that advocacy for more government spending was somehow something other than the “socialism” which Goldwater, Reagan, and other conservative leaders recognized it to be.
Goldwater was a conservative. Reagan strived to be a conservative. Arguably, political activist Kelli Cook of Montgomery is a conservative.
So-called “social conservatives” are often not conservatives at all especially where they fight for bigger government. A great example of the conflict between “social conservatives” and real conservatives arose in Montgomery County when a group of people called for a committee to censor books in the public library. That’s not conservative. That’s calling for bigger government. Similarly, when the American Library Association seeks to direct which books should appear in public libraries, they’re not conservative either. (Could the problem be public libraries?)
Under the foregoing definition of “conservative,” Goldwater would not call any of the members of the Montgomery County Commissioners Court “conservative,” with the possible exception of Precinct 3 County Commissioner James Noack.
What’s a Republican?
It’s easy to find the answer, although it might take some time to figure the answer out. The definition of a “Republican” lies within the Platform of the Republican Party. Since we live in the State of Texas, the Republican Party of Texas Platform is the definition of a Republican.
You might retort: a “Republican” is anyone who wins the Republican Primary Election. The tens of thousands of Republican activists who worked very hard in Precinct, Senatorial, and State Republican Conventions to craft the current Platform would likely disagree. Just because democrats Malcolm Purvis and Craig Doyal switched political parties, on their stated ground that “we want to win,” and just because they did win, that doesn’t make them “Republican.” That only means that they won an election.
Their actions after they won the election are the true judge of whether they’re “Republican.”
Interestingly, looking at the voting records of the five members of the Montgomery County Commissioners Court, it’s fairly easy to identify the “Republicans.” Noack is clearly a Republican. Precinct 4 County Commissioner Jim Clark is the next closest to voting as a Republican. Doyal, Riley and Precinct 1 County Commissioner Mike Meador are Republicans in name only (“RINOs”).
What’s a liberal?
A classic 19th century “liberal” was someone who believed that government has limited functions: national security, public safety, and contract enforcement. Economist Milton Friedman was a “liberal” under that definition. 7th Circuit U.S. Appeals Judge Richard Posner was a “liberal” under he became a judge and the power seems to have gone to his head.
A modern “liberal” is quite different from the classical variety. A modern “liberal” is someone who believes that government is the solution to problems. Are there any modern liberals in Montgomery County? Doyal, Riley, and Meador are prime examples.
What’s a libertarian?
Sadly, “libertarians” are not classical “liberals” nor are they “conservatives.” They’re an odd political party that seems to be a strange version of modern liberals, even though many of their members would vehemently disagree. Gary Johnson was just strange as the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate. Former Republican William Weld, who had served as Governor of Massachusetts, is nothing other than a modern “liberal.”
What are the Davenports and their cronies?
The Golden Hammer, Montgomery County’s leading daily newspaper, has received several hundred requests on its tipline requesting more in the series about the Davenports, Marc and Stephanne.
Marc and Stephanne Davenport have no ideology. They just want power and money. That’s an anti-ideology, although modern “liberalism” seems to fit nicely with those types of people. Some of their “enforcers” seem to follow the same “principles”: Wayne Mack and Judge James Metts. They want power and seem willing to do just about anything to get it. Precinct 4 Justice of the Peace candidate, who is otherwise reputed to be a pretty good guy, seems to follow orders.
Rand Henderson, the Sheriff, and Rowdy Hayden, the Precinct 4 Constable, seem to have set themselves somewhat apart ideologically, although Henderson at least “tows the line” for his Davenport boss.
A philosophy of “the end justifies the means” would seem to be Machiavellian and little else (although Nicolo Machiavelli was far more principled than his historical reputation.)
“Conservative, County Spending, Davenport, Liberal, Libertarian, Patriot, Republican
byronandkathy2003
Veteran Member
how about pissed off deplorable's
MinnesotaSmith
Membership Revoked
Nah to "conservative", agreed. Conservatives have conserved exactly nothing for over a century. "Patriots" is a term lib traitors could semi-believably steal.
I'm sticking with "alt-right". Good summary on this from Vox Day:
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24, 2016
What The Inevitable is
"In the interest of developing a core Alternative Right philosophy upon which others can build.
The patron saint of conservatives, Russell Kirk, wrote: "The great line of demarcation in modern politics, Eric Voegelin used to point out, is not a division between liberals on one side and totalitarians on the other. No, on one side of that line are all those men and women who fancy that the temporal order is the only order, and that material needs are their only needs, and that they may do as they like with the human patrimony. On the other side of that line are all those people who recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant human nature, and high duties toward the order spiritual and the order temporal."
This is no longer true, assuming it ever was. The great line of demarcation in modern politics is now a division between men and women who believe that they are ultimately defined by their momentary opinions and those who believe they are ultimately defined by their genetic heritage. The Alt Right understands that the former will always lose to the latter in the end, because the former is subject to change."
I'm sticking with "alt-right". Good summary on this from Vox Day:
Login to read
voxday.blogspot.com
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24, 2016
What The Inevitable is
"In the interest of developing a core Alternative Right philosophy upon which others can build.
- The Inevitable is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Inevitable. Progressives are not Inevitable. Liberals are not Inevitable. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right. National Socialists are not Inevitable.
- The Inevitable is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk's 10 Conservative Principles, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism.
- The Inevitable is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Inevitable believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history.
- The Inevitable believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy.
- The Inevitable is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.
- The Inevitable is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives.
- The Inevitable is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.
- The Inevitable is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific.
- The Inevitable believes identity > culture > politics.
- The Inevitable is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Inevitable is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.
- The Inevitable understands that diversity + proximity = war.
- The Inevitable doesn't care what you think of it.
- The Inevitable rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.
- The Inevitable believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.
- The Inevitable does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.
- The Inevitable is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.
The patron saint of conservatives, Russell Kirk, wrote: "The great line of demarcation in modern politics, Eric Voegelin used to point out, is not a division between liberals on one side and totalitarians on the other. No, on one side of that line are all those men and women who fancy that the temporal order is the only order, and that material needs are their only needs, and that they may do as they like with the human patrimony. On the other side of that line are all those people who recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant human nature, and high duties toward the order spiritual and the order temporal."
This is no longer true, assuming it ever was. The great line of demarcation in modern politics is now a division between men and women who believe that they are ultimately defined by their momentary opinions and those who believe they are ultimately defined by their genetic heritage. The Alt Right understands that the former will always lose to the latter in the end, because the former is subject to change."
((Shrug))
I'll just stick with American...as opposed to communist.
I'll just stick with American...as opposed to communist.
Mr. Peabody
Veteran Member
Patriots adhere to the idea of individual liberty.
As Jefferson wrote, “sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man".
Patriots are grounded in natural law theory. All commies and pretty much the entire left are hardcore opponents of natural rights.
The old school of "conservatives" is corrupt and largely void of any belief in either individual liberty or natural law rights. If the conservatism would have held these beliefs, we wouldn't be in this semi-socialist, commie tolerant, RHINO democrat ass kissing, NDAA approving, allowing administrators in government offices to dictate law and citizens being arrested (see BATF) IRS, and the likes of the EPA etc. predicament.
Conservatives continually enact laws that violate natural law and individual liberty (NDAA)
A lot of people that called themselves conservatives were subdued by false hope and wealth based on debt. They allowed massive gov spending to destroy their children's future.
A lot of conservatives went off to foreign countries to fight and die for European banker wars.
Conservatives went to church because they could.
Today's conservatives don't go to church because the overlords said no, you must FEAR the great RONA. So the conservatives bowed their heads and did as they were told. 1A be dammed.
Conservatives believed in the BOR. Yet they allowed the gov to dictate to continually squash the 2A.
Conservatives have done VERY little to stop murdering of "the unborn or so newly born they aint people yet"
Conservatives would continually vote for the least of two evils that the Republican Party would offer up, who was a semi-socialist, instead of voting for a true conservative
Conservatives know how to compromise and tolerate so well that the left is left with no reason to ever give an inch.
Nope, I aint a conservative.
As Jefferson wrote, “sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man".
Patriots are grounded in natural law theory. All commies and pretty much the entire left are hardcore opponents of natural rights.
The old school of "conservatives" is corrupt and largely void of any belief in either individual liberty or natural law rights. If the conservatism would have held these beliefs, we wouldn't be in this semi-socialist, commie tolerant, RHINO democrat ass kissing, NDAA approving, allowing administrators in government offices to dictate law and citizens being arrested (see BATF) IRS, and the likes of the EPA etc. predicament.
Conservatives continually enact laws that violate natural law and individual liberty (NDAA)
A lot of people that called themselves conservatives were subdued by false hope and wealth based on debt. They allowed massive gov spending to destroy their children's future.
A lot of conservatives went off to foreign countries to fight and die for European banker wars.
Conservatives went to church because they could.
Today's conservatives don't go to church because the overlords said no, you must FEAR the great RONA. So the conservatives bowed their heads and did as they were told. 1A be dammed.
Conservatives believed in the BOR. Yet they allowed the gov to dictate to continually squash the 2A.
Conservatives have done VERY little to stop murdering of "the unborn or so newly born they aint people yet"
Conservatives would continually vote for the least of two evils that the Republican Party would offer up, who was a semi-socialist, instead of voting for a true conservative
Conservatives know how to compromise and tolerate so well that the left is left with no reason to ever give an inch.
Nope, I aint a conservative.
Jeff B.
Don’t let the Piss Ants get you down…
TKO
Veteran Member
WEALTHY don't love it and have a lot of loopholes. Middle classer leftards love paying taxes. They would pay more if leftist goals get reached.