NationStates Jolt Archive

It is my belief that the word "Conservative" has been very much mutilated when used in a political sense. See, Conservative mean less. Hence, true conservatives want less government. Does this sound like the current wave of Republicans? The answer is no, the reason? Christianity, yup....I know, I sound cliche, "Christans are bad, and the source of all true evil....(but I won't get into that :rolleyes:) Anyways, it's true, somehow the word conservative got interlinked with Christian. I mean, when you think of Conservatives, do you think Atheist, Agnotistic, or Buddhist? NO! The Christian relgion has taken over Republicans. True Republicians would be Pro-Choice(The government can't say that a woman can't, thats HER right), Pro-Gay marriage (Hmmm, what document says "We hold these truths to be self evident, that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL; oh yeah, thats the Decleration of Indepedence...for umm...America.) See, here's an analogy, when a cookbook says use a liberal amount of salt, you use ALOT, when it says use a conservative amout....you use a little. Current Republicans sound a little too much like liberals to me. In fact, in the Supreme Court case of Kelo v. New London, in a 5-4 decision, three Republicans voted with the Liberals that the State should have the right to use Eminent Domain to tack aways these peoples homes for a Pfizer plant. The 5th admendment to the US Constitution says ".....for public use" How is building a Pfizer plant, "the public use"? Maybe for some of us to be less fortunate and have impotancy problems....but thats their problem. Back to the subject, in fact, look at the Christian Church, that is a huge station telling you what you CAN and what you CAN'T do, so the Christian Church is Liberal, because there is alot of government, or administration. In conclusion, the word Conservative does not equal Christian, so just keep that in mind if you call yourself Liberal, because you don't want to be assiocated with hypocrites.

One last thing is the American Pop-Punk band Green Day. Ok, what the hell?! These guys call themselves punk, and erm, last time I checked punk disestablishment, not LIBERALS. Thats not my main contention, but it just peeves me. My main contention is that what liberal "punk" bands like this have done is brain washed mindless youth into believing that they are punk, and having 5th-12th graders drawing Anarchy signs on their peechees, and then they call themselves LIBERAL......they have it all wrong....if they were AGAINST government....they.....would....be.....CONSERVATIVE.....
thus ends my rant...please discuss this with andy friends or realitvies who are Green Day fans....
also please post ideas and things I should change, because I am thinking of turning this into a letter to the editor for a local newspaper.....the above two posts...mostly the first one

wow.....the ignorance...Being republican does not necessarily mean conservatism and vice versa. Also, the ideals of BOTH major U.S. politcal parties have switched back and forth somewhat. Now days, Liberals are for a hell of Government control, and Republicans are for profit and being the rats that can stay on top.

My biggest problem with the religous right is this. I do not want to be forced by threat of legal sanction to be Christian. If Christianity completly left politics and shut the F up I'd never have a problem with Christianity. Unless of course as a group they threatened me in some other way. Conservitive = Anarchy? You know you could use a differnt measure. Conservitives could be said to be conservitive on rights; You know the fewer the better.

When used politically, the word 'conservative' means, more or less, 'preferring to preserve the status quo'. 'Liberal' means, 'preferring change'. Proponents of more extreme views on either side would be known as 'Reactionaries' (those who believe that things should return to what they were at a previous time) and 'Radicals' (advocating radical social change, e.g. revolution), respectively. In many ways the Republican party can be considered 'conservative' socially; they are, after all, puritanical when it comes to sexual education, anti-gay marriage, etc., reminiscient of a previous time when such things WERE the status quo (what with Christendom and all).

When used politically, the word 'conservative' means, more or less, 'preferring to preserve the status quo'. 'Liberal' means, 'preferring change'. Proponents of more extreme views on either side would be known as 'Reactionaries' (those who believe that things should return to what they were at a previous time) and 'Radicals' (advocating radical social change, e.g. revolution), respectively. In many ways the Republican party can be considered 'conservative' socially; they are, after all, puritanical when it comes to sexual education, anti-gay marriage, etc., reminiscient of a previous time when such things WERE the status quo (what with Christendom and all).

I believe by your definition Reactionary would be more aplicable.

I believe by your definition Reactionary would be more aplicable.

Yeah, I suppose so. Goddamn Republichristians ....

I think what we are experiencing today is another party switch. Long ago in the distant past of the U.S., the parties were completely opposite of what they are today. I believe we are seeing a switch back to the origional state, with the exception of one thing: liberals (better termed as progressives, although that term is already taken) generally want change, and conservatives want things to stay the way they are (for the most part). The other meaning of conservative means cautious, so I think that really has more meaning today. On the other hand, the big government/small government thing really is changing around, due to those in power. The true power of those in office is to sway the people's minds, and that is what is happening (happened?) yet again.

Oops, I guess I spent a wee bit too much time writitng my response up.

[QUOTE=Ginnoria] Proponents of more extreme views on either side would be known as 'Reactionaries' (those who believe that things should return to what they were at a previous time) and 'Radicals' (advocating radical social change, e.g. revolution), respectively.[QUOTE]
Sorry, yes, to clarify, this is what I dispise the most. And above people have mentioned that Republicans vote conservatively....no, they don't they vote Christianly....once again, the main purpose of this is not to define what denotes Republican or Democrat, my point was to say that Christans have taken over the Republican party, and the word Conservative. My point was not clearly made. I'm Sorry

[QUOTE=Ginnoria] Proponents of more extreme views on either side would be known as 'Reactionaries' (those who believe that things should return to what they were at a previous time) and 'Radicals' (advocating radical social change, e.g. revolution), respectively.[QUOTE]
Sorry, yes, to clarify, this is what I dispise the most. And above people have mentioned that Republicans vote conservatively....no, they don't they vote Christianly....once again, the main purpose of this is not to define what denotes Republican or Democrat, my point was to say that Christans have taken over the Republican party, and the word Conservative. My point was not clearly made. I'm Sorry


At least we learned something. Together we figured it out :)

You questioned Ginnoria helped and I tried to. :)

Thank ye kindly....:D

In saying that Conservatism=Anarchy... that can be true. People on either side of the political spectrum and anywhere inbetween I think can agree with this thought.

If you go too far to the right... you get anarchy.
If you go too far to the left.... you get anarchy.

Eventually... as the extremes get further and further away from the middle and when they reach the point when they are the least like eachother, it starts to make a circle and come around to be exactly the same thing.

Think about it before making stupid comments, really. I think you will find that it's true.

See, Conservative mean less. Hence, true conservatives want less government. Does this sound like the current wave of Republicans? The answer is no, the reason? Christianity, yup....I know, I sound cliche, "Christans are bad, and the source of all true evil....(but I won't get into that :rolleyes:) Anyways, it's true, somehow the word conservative got interlinked with Christian.

you are a bit confused

Republicans are no more conservative than leftists are liberal. At least that's what it's come to these days. To be liberal means to allow more freedom, but many leftist parties, such as the Dems, like to increase government control and limit freedoms. Calling Dems liberal is a cruel joke.

Conservative should mean reducing expense in as many ways possible. In politics, this means reducing government expendatures to their bare minimum.

True conservatism is synonymous with moderation and conventional thinking while true liberalism is synonymous more radical ideology. A true conservative tends to stick with what's safe and well established while a true liberal will take leaps of faith on new ideas and tend to make their own path. The conservative is thinking of the future and plays it safe while the liberal is more sort-sighted and concentrates on the moment. Each has its pros and cons (greater risk offers great gain and all that jazz) but niether works well alone. If your too patient you may miss a crucial opportunity but you'll never complete a task if you keep leaving it for another.

Edit: as far as christianity being evil...
http://omgwtf.superlime.com/GirlsEvil.jpg
Just about anything can be considered evil

Looks like everyone's saying the same thing...

Amazing, isn't it?

Amazing, isn't it?

It is amazing! OMG! I can't believe it!

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/9638/85317yz.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Conservative should mean reducing expense in as many ways possible. In politics, this means reducing government expendatures to their bare minimum.

no, that is not a defining conservative position.

It is my belief that the word "Conservative" has been very much mutilated when used in a political sense. See, Conservative mean less. Hence, true conservatives want less government.
As far as I know, "conservative" doesn't have a connection to the word "less". If I understand correctly, it is more connected to the word "conserve", meaning that "conservativism" is about preserving tradition.

This is why I don't understand why so many libertarians/classic liberals label themselves "conservative". None of them want to preserve tradition, they want to let people do as they please. I don't get it...

As far as I know, "conservative" doesn't have a connection to the word "less". If I understand correctly, it is more connected to the word "conserve", meaning that "conservativism" is about preserving tradition.

This is why I don't understand why so many libertarians/classic liberals label themselves "conservative". None of them want to preserve tradition, they want to let people do as they please. I don't get it...
Classical Liberals share some views with conservatives and that bit of togetherness is over-emphasized and causes confusion.

I use tradition as a method more than anything else.

move to northern europe and be happy:rolleyes: ...our government states that our right for religion should not be infringed upon and our philosophical ideals go with that... you misinturpret a lot.. but whatever, im not a regular on this bored nor will i probly check it, have fun and stuff..

My biggest problem with the religous right is this. I do not want to be forced by threat of legal sanction to be Christian. If Christianity completly left politics and shut the F up I'd never have a problem with Christianity. Unless of course as a group they threatened me in some other way. Conservitive = Anarchy? You know you could use a differnt measure. Conservitives could be said to be conservitive on rights; You know the fewer the better.

And who wants to use the law to force you to be a Christian? I have heard this so many times, what is the source of this nonsense?

Somebody please tell me---is this just the paranoia of the anti-religious? (I suspect that it is):confused:

I have never heard of any Christian leader saying such things.

In the US, the first amendment to the Constitution prohibits a theocracy. Elsewhere, you're on your own. Don't move to a Middle East theocracy. That's where they will force you to convert...

The Christian relgion has taken over Republicans. True Republicians would be Pro-Choice(The government can't say that a woman can't, thats HER right),


True Republicans are for a 'Republic' and so are against Roe v. Wade, because it is a missuse of Federal Judicial power to tell the States their Abortion related laws are 'unconstitutional' and therefore struck down. Each State should be able to pass its own laws on the topic, not a few people in black robes making up law as they go. It has nothing to do with religion from a True Republicans view.

BTW a woman has no 'right' to Abortion, the ruling is based on privacy, the Government cannot invade her medical privacy to know she is pregnant, and therefore cannot intervene for the right to life of the unborn infant.

And who wants to use the law to force you to be a Christian? I have heard this so many times, what is the source of this nonsense?

Somebody please tell me---is this just the paranoia of the anti-religious? (I suspect that it is):confused:

I have never heard of any Christian leader saying such things.

In the US, the first amendment to the Constitution prohibits a theocracy. Elsewhere, you're on your own. Don't move to a Middle East theocracy. That's where they will force you to convert...

There are many many laws already on the books that have nothing to do with protecting people.

Examples of good seculer laws are ones that address stealing, murder, fruad, etc.

Examples of bad ( and all religous laws are bad ) religous laws are laws based on forbidden knowledge such as laws against possesion of certain pictures or writtings deamed unholy. Also laws prohibiting sexual acts deamed unholy have no real seculer justification. Laws prohibiting minors from seeing certian movies, reading certian magazines, or visiting certian websites are based solely on the religous concept of forbidden knowledge and have no seculer justification. Bush's stem cell prohibitions have no seculer justification.

You wanted to know. Well there they are.

EDIT: Oh yes. Gay marriage bans are interely religous.

Sorry about my spelling. Wish there was spell check on here.

When used politically, the word 'conservative' means, more or less, 'preferring to preserve the status quo'. 'Liberal' means, 'preferring change'.

By that definition most people who call themselves "liberals" or "conservatives" are being silly. You can be in favour of changing something because you believe the change would be positive, or against the change because you believe it is detrimental. Being against all change in every circumstance, even if it is clearly for the best, or always favouring changes without looking at the consequences is not a position I think may people would consider rational.

Absolutely right. The Republican Party has sold its soul/foundation - small government ideals - to the Christian religious fundamentalist movement in exchange for votes. They've sacrificed small government and fiscal responsibility, and sidetracked everything else in favor of becoming the FCP - the Fundamentalist Christian Party. No longer a Big Tent - a rather small one with a big sign that says "All conservatives must be social conservatives."

Their wedge issue is gay marriage, their key issue is abortion, their foreign policy is tribalistic UN-hating and War on All 'Dem Ragheads, and fiscal policy and the economy are warming the bench. What a pathetic state of affairs....

...if they were AGAINST government....they.....would....be.....CONSERVATIVE.....
No, they would be anarchist.

It is my belief that the word "Conservative" has been very much mutilated when used in a political sense. See, Conservative mean less. Hence, true conservatives want less government. Does this sound like the current wave of Republicans? The answer is no, the reason? Christianity, yup...
Republican big government isn't taking the form of theocracy. It's taking the form of foreign wars, subsidies to business and homeland security (need I say more?). Which basically means that Republican big government is about the same as Democratic big government.

Absolutely right. The Republican Party has sold its soul/foundation - small government ideals - to the Christian religious fundamentalist movement in exchange for votes.
The Republicans were never really a small government party. Maybe in the 1910s and 1920s but no other time.

By that definition most people who call themselves "liberals" or "conservatives" are being silly. You can be in favour of changing something because you believe the change would be positive, or against the change because you believe it is detrimental. Being against all change in every circumstance, even if it is clearly for the best, or always favouring changes without looking at the consequences is not a position I think may people would consider rational.

You're taking it a little too far. Liberals prefer any change from the old system if there is any reason at all to do so; they basically favor new ideas for the sake of new ideas, and continuous progress. Conservatives, on the other hand, prefer to have no change unless it's absolutely necessary. So basically, liberals prefer not to keep it the same unless it must be so and see the old as inferior to the new by default, and conservatives prefer to not to change it unless it must be so, and see what is already in place as preferable by default.

By that definition most people who call themselves "liberals" or "conservatives" are being silly.

Well, those are the definitions when it comes to politics. I didn't make them up.


You can be in favour of changing something because you believe the change would be positive, or against the change because you believe it is detrimental. Being against all change in every circumstance, even if it is clearly for the best, or always favouring changes without looking at the consequences is not a position I think may people would consider rational.

Er ... do you live in the US? I hate to throw stones, but rational is not an adjective I would use when describing the behavior of my nation's voting population.