- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 45,596
- Reaction score
- 22,536
- Location
- Everywhere and nowhere
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Yes we seem to have your opinion, which is that allowing society to "progress" towards long dead standards of behavior of ancient Sodom and Greece is somehow inevitable and good, and then we have my opinion, that you "progressives" will be stopped, then driven back so society can elevate its standards of behavior to one-man one-woman lifelong relationships.Forward doesn't necessarily denote positive. It means that things are progressing. If I was to say that a war was progressing to more bloodshed and violence that wouldn't be a positive thing, but the term still works. And as far as the rest of your comment that is a matter of opinion as well.
Yes we seem to have your opinion, which is that allowing society to "progress" towards long dead standards of behavior of ancient Sodom and Greece is somehow inevitable and good, and then we have my opinion, that you "progressives" will be stopped, then driven back so society can elevate its standards of behavior to one-man one-woman lifelong relationships.
Not marriage. Not in 5000 years anyway. *shrug*
Not marriage. Not in 5000 years anyway. *shrug*
Read back for my previous response to a nearly identical question. :roll:The tradition hasn't changed from 5000 yrs ago? WTF are you smoking? Polygamy was the norm and women were basically property.
That's a typical liberal distortion as well as a complete misunderstanding f conservative principles. It is impossible to debate someone who is ignorant of the basics.Just because something is a tradition for a long time doesn't mean that it's right. Slavery was a tradition for a long time too.
Of course, this argument boils down one of the essential differences between liberals and conservatives. Liberals want things to progress and evolve and Conservatives want things to stay the same or "traditional".
I don't think I'll ever understand the hatred that Conservatives have for San Francisco. Yeah, it's a pretty liberal minded place and it was the hub of the 60's drug era. So what? Honestly, why is San Francisco so horrible?
After living there, I can tell you the hatred for San Francisco comes from the smell. Some weird amalgam of homelessness, meth, chocolate, and butt grease.
You have a profound tendency to OVER-Generalize. What is this "perceived" Conservative hate for San Francisco? I am a Conservative and I love the city; to visit that is. I wouldn't want to try living there because the cost of living there is humongous.
Carry on. :roll:
That's a typical liberal distortion as well as a complete misunderstanding f conservative principles. It is impossible to debate someone who is ignorant of the basics.
Of course, this argument boils down one of the essential differences between liberals and conservatives. Liberals want things to progress and evolve and Conservatives want things to stay the same or "traditional".
Obviously you haven't read previous posts in the thread. I wasn't over-generalizing. I was specifically addressing the Conservatives who felt that way. I'm sorry that I didn't clarify that more, but I thought it was kind of understood. :roll:
One poster was advocating sending Gitmo detainees to live in San Fran and another wanted the place nuked. I've seen plenty of other Conservatives spewing trash talk about San Fran as well.
That's what happens when you use a simple dictionary definition to try and describe a political movement: simplistic nonsense.conservative - disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
...
So what you are saying is that you didn't really mean this:
"I'll ever understand the hatred that Conservatives have for San Francisco."
You meant this? "I'll ever understand the hatred that Conservatives on this thread have for San Francisco."
:roll:
That's what happens when you use a simple dictionary definition to try and describe a political movement: simplistic nonsense.
You have a profound tendency to OVER-Generalize. What is this "perceived" Conservative hate for San Francisco? I am a Conservative and I love the city; to visit that is. I wouldn't want to try living there because the cost of living there is humongous.
Carry on. :roll:
So if I were to take the word "liberal" in Webster I would find the platform of the Democrat Party? :roll:Yes, damn those simplistic dictionaries for telling us what words actually mean! :lol:
So if I were to take the word "liberal" in Webster I would find the platform of the Democrat Party? :roll:
Granted; I'll rephrase: So if I were to take the word "liberal" in Webster I would find the platform of the modern Liberal political movement?Liberal and Democrat are two different things. One obviously can be a liberal without being a Democrat.
So if I were to take the word "liberal" in Webster I would find the platform of the Democrat Party? :roll:
Granted; I'll rephrase: So if I were to take the word "liberal" in Webster I would find the platform of the modern Liberal political movement?
Actually, the meaning of the two terms has changed over time. For example, the Founders of this country viewed themselves as liberals of the time. The idea that Man derived his freedom from God and that man in turn granted limited powers to government, and that if those powers were not carefully checked then man's liberty was in jeopardy, was a completely liberal view. In 2009, I, as a conservative, I defend those 233 year old "liberal" views.I don't know. What is the modern Liberal political movement? The people within the group and their or your interpretation of what a liberal is doesn't change the definition. I personally consider some of my views liberal and some not. You are right that it's not something that can be simplified, but the word itself doesn't change meaning. The people within that political ideology or who align themselves with part or all of that political ideology are going to vary. Liberal is just a word , just as Conservative is and the definitions are what they are and will remain so.
Actually, the meaning of the two terms has changed over time. For example, the Founders of this country viewed themselves as liberals of the time. The idea that Man derived his freedom from God and that man in turn granted limited powers to government, and that if those powers were not carefully checked then man's liberty was in jeopardy, was a completely liberal view. In 2009, I, as a conservative, I defend those 233 year old "liberal" views.
It does when you're talking about how you want to limit the role of federal government, the definition of freedom, and the desired economic system. Modern liberals want the feds to go well beyond their Constitutional mandate. Modern Conservatives understand that with freedom comes personal responsibility; Liberals want freedom from personal responsibility. Conservatives want a free market, capitalist economy; Liberals want a socialist economy.Well, the views of progression were certainly different back then. However, progression has to move forward, it can't just stay in the same place. So therefore, yes, the views of our liberal founding fathers would now be considered Conservative by current standards. It still doesn't change the meaning of the terms "liberal" and "conservative".
I'm referring to the Judaeo-Christian tradition that still lives on, not some Roman one that was taken over by it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?