• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

True Conservatives, (And That Doesn't Include Limbaugh or Beck.)

rustypouch said:
I don't agree.

You seem to be idealizing your view of what rebuplicans should be.
....
The needs of the many before the needs of the few? For some reason, that seems communist to me. I thought the conservative ideal was that everyone should look out for themselves, and if they can't be bothered, or lack the resources, it's their own fault for not trying harder.
...
Click to expand...
I could be wrong, but I think that RT was idealizing what conservatives should strive to be. Republicans are not necessarily equal to conservatives.

I think the conservative ideal should be to raise everyone to prosperity rather than to strive to make everyone equally miserable.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Larry Craig was shunned? I would say it was more like ignored hoping no one would continue to notice him. Did we hear any conservative voices of condemnation of his behavior, in particular the behavior that put his unsuspecting wife at risk of HIV should he have gotten it?
Click to expand...

First, I think shunned and ignored are close enough that they are the same for purposes of this issue.

Second, even if shunned is stronger, then the RNC refusing to fund his reelection campaign counts as shunning.

Third, is there any evidence that his homosexual behavior involved unprotected sex?

Fourth, any lack of condemnation of his behavior has nothing to do with the issue I was addressing, namely, when describing the qualities that conservatives should strive for (or return to), one cannot look at the behavior of a tiny, tiny percentage of conservatives and say these conservatives do not have the trait under discussion therefore no conservatives have the trait under discussion.
 
peptoabysmal said:
I could be wrong, but I think that RT was idealizing what conservatives should strive to be. Republicans are not necessarily equal to conservatives.
Click to expand...

No he was idealizing moral principles he said nothing about political principles that could be viewed as an underpinning of any kind of conservativism.
 
Ladewig said:
....
Third, is there any evidence that his homosexual behavior involved unprotected sex?
Click to expand...
Male gay sex with random strangers in an airport bathroom is not safe sex even with condoms. Condoms are more likely to tear with anal sex and oral sex has been shown to transmit HIV.

There's an off chance all he did was let guys suck his tool, but even that risks herpes.


On the shunned vs ignored, I'll cede your point.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Male gay sex with random strangers in an airport bathroom is not safe sex even with condoms. Condoms are more likely to tear with anal sex and oral sex has been shown to transmit HIV.

There's an off chance all he did was let guys suck his tool, but even that risks herpes.
Click to expand...

Yes, I thought twice about what I said in the previous post. While there is no conclusive evidence of his specific behavior, the likelihood of unprotected sex in this type of encounter is too large to be ignored or go unmentioned. Besides, if he actually had condoms in his pocket when he was arrested, I'm sure the local police would have leaked that fact to the press. Of course, even if one could get Senator Craig to admit he was cruising, he would most certainly argue that this was the very first time, so he would claim that there is no history of unprotected anonymous men's room sex.
 
Roadtoad said:
I'm sick of it. I tired of hearing about "conservatives" like Beck, Palin, Limbaugh, and their ilk. In all honesty, I don't think they understand the meaning of the word, and what it once meant.
Click to expand...

Maybe different terms should make the distinctions within and against more mainstream conservatism. Use adjectives other than "true".

The people you name here could be called simply "reactionary demagogues" or "high-SDO leaders", and the people who follow them could be termed "right-wing populists", who are different from "secular conservatives".

More terms for various subcategories of conservatives and subcategories of the far right can be found here: http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Politics/2004/10/The-Twelve-Tribes-Of-American-Politics.aspx and here: http://www.publiceye.org/research/chart_of_sectors.html I find it helpful to not lump everyone to the right of me into a single monolithic group, because there isn't one.


Tricky said:
A lot of what you say is what both sides say about themselves. But things like "Maximum benefit for the greatest number" sounds curiously like socialism....
Click to expand...

It sounds to me like utilitarianism. For more, read your Bentham and Mill. I don't think that they would be categorized among the socialists.
 
Last edited:
Roadtoad said:
Given some of the responses on this thread? I wouldn't dare to hazard a guess.

This began as an inquiry. It's become something far less. I find it interesting that in threads like, where someone someone is putting an idea forth to be challenged, there are those who need to put some ugliness behind their responses. Sorry I wasted everyone's time.
Click to expand...

If I'm one of those, I'm sorry. The current political climate in AZ has made me extremely bitter and cynical lately.
 
peptoabysmal said:
I could be wrong, but I think that RT was idealizing what conservatives should strive to be. Republicans are not necessarily equal to conservatives.
Click to expand...
Very true, but you won't find very many Republican politicians who would claim to be anything other than conservative. Maybe Ron Paul.

peptoabysmal said:
I think the conservative ideal should be to raise everyone to prosperity rather than to strive to make everyone equally miserable.
Click to expand...
I think liberals and progressives agree with you. I think they just differ in how to accomplish that.
 
The definition of conservative and liberal that I liked the most came from, of all people, radio host Phil Hendry.

As distinguished from conservatism or liberalism in general (which can differ between personal and political behavior), if one sticks with political conservatism or liberalism, the best distinction I can imagine has to do with the role of government:

A conservative finds government to be something of a necessary evil, and would argue that a proposal of government action should only be enacted if there is a compelling need for it.

A liberal finds government to be a useful source of improvement, and would be willing to accept a useful government proposal unless there is a compelling reason NOT to do so.

This definition leaves it possible to agree on some proposals in fact. There is plenty of room for overlap.
 
Today’s definition of conservative and liberal.
Conservative good, liberal evil.
 
Roadtoad said:
No, I got it. It's just that I haven't played since 1981.

It's a bitch getting older.
Click to expand...

I had hoped for an intellectual discussion on the question of which evil alignment fascism fits best. Because, sometimes, the best countermeasure against fascist drivel is to make fun of it.
 
Lurker said:
Likewise. Don't follow the new alignments. for me, Fascism is either LE or LN.
Click to expand...

Those aren´t actually new alignments, just descriptions for the regular ones. (and I´m boycotting 4th edition, so I´m talking about the ones that have been around since at least 2nd edition)

Angelic: Lawful Good
Benevolent: Neutral Good
Heroic: Chaotic Good
??? (don´t remember this one): Lawful Neutral
Balanced: True Neutral
Egoistic: Chaotic Neutral
Diabolic: Lawful Evil
Malevolent: Neutral Evil
Demonic: Chaotic Evil



I´d say Fascism is more Neutral Evil, at least in practice.
The Nazi habit of predating laws to retroactively make their actions legal, at least in the early part of their rule, is clearly not lawful.
Likewise, the description of Lawful Evil states that a Lawful Evil character who has given his word will abide by it, or at least the letter of it; this does not exactly describe Hitler´s repeated "definitely the very last demand ever".
With all that infighting among the Nazis, you could even make a weak argument that they were really Chaotic Evil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom