Posted on 04/21/2007 6:42:25 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
We've got some real challenges facing us. FR was established to fight against government corruption, overstepping, and abuse and to fight for a return to the limited constitutional government as envisioned and set forth by our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and other founding documents.
One of the biggest cases of government corruption, overstepping and abuse that I know of is its disgraceful headlong slide into a socialist hell. Our founders never intended for abortion to be the law of the land. And they never intended the Supreme Court to be a legislative body. They never intended God or religion to be written out of public life. They never intended government to be used to deny God's existence or for government to be used to force sexual perversions onto our society or into our children's education curriculum. They never intend for government to disarm the people. They never intended for government to set up sanctuary cities for illegals. They never intended government to rule over the people and or to take their earnings or private property or to deprive them of their constitutional rights to free speech, free religion, private property, due process, etc. They never intended government to seize the private property of private citizens through draconian asset forfeiture laws or laws allowing government to take private property from lawful owners to give to developers. Or to seize wealth and redistribute it to others. Or to provide government forced health insurance or government forced retirement systems.
All of the above are examples of ever expanding socialism and tyranny brought to us by liberals/liberalism.
FR fights against the liberals/Democrats in all of these areas and always will. Now if liberalism infiltrates into the Republican party and Republicans start promoting all this socialist garbage, do you think that I or FR will suddenly stop fighting against it? Do you think I'm going to bow down and accept abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, global warming, illegal alien lawbreakers, gun control, asset forfeiture, socialism, tyranny, totalitarianism, etc, etc, etc, just so some fancy New York liberal lawyer can become president from the Republican party?
Do you really expect me to do that?
Knitting A Conundrum very helpfully posted a link to the description of the fallacy. My point was very simple and straight forward, the argument that wagglebee put forward was an extreme and needless narrowing of the definition of a conservative to such a point that very few conservatives will be left on this forum. Taken to reductio ad absurdum, the group of 'true' conservatives will inevitably consist of one person. Traveling down the slippery slope, JR could at some point decide that those who disagree with his interpretation of Chaucer's 'Anelida and Arcite' be banned.
Taking a well accepted description of conservatism and building a ill considered Conservatism based on bits and pieces of the original description brings up visions of brown shirts and black boots (valid or not).
There’s gotta be some way of keeping this going long enough to get there. What else can come up with? We’ve been through rudy and conservativism, *just sayin* and his abortion alternative fantasy, had a burst of complaining about all the zots and grave dancing, criticism of fund raising just because some peeple donated, discussed DC and other anti FR sites some,....
There’s still plenty left. It’s just a matter of choosing.
So what’s the well accepted definition of conservatism?
It works for me.
What’s up? Fmail me.
Well said, metmom. I know some people can afford to give more than others ~ I certainly wouldn’t judge a person’s contribution by dollars alone!!
Give us a break. We are talking about conservatism the way it was espoused by Ronald Reagan and others. Quite simply, conservatives are pro-life, believe in the limited role of the federal government as spelled out in the Constitution, and understand that our freedom and liberty comes from God and not government.
bookmark
“Taking a well accepted description of conservatism and building a ill considered Conservatism based on bits and pieces of the original description brings up visions of brown shirts and black boots (valid or not).”
Bits and pieces?
I don’t see that here. What I do see is people, whom believe in the Founding Fathers vision, wishing to return the original meanings in the Constitution and abiding by those meanings.
Not electing a Republican with ‘liberal’ positions, and instead insisting on Strict Constructionist for POTUS, to me is hardly “building ill considered conservatism based on bits and pieces”.
No one here ascribes to what you portend.
Great definition.
whom = who
“Theres still plenty left. Its just a matter of choosing.”
Oh, we’ll get there no doubt. I still think a name change for the thread is appropriate. We haven’t even started talking about the alternate candidates. Their names have been tossed about here and there, but nothing much beyond the surface.
I personally have been too busy with this thread and other things to even send out mails about it (lol). Knitting A Conundrum’s quotes have been an awsome mix to the postings too, and of course the others posting quotes.
— Hey there! Put me on the recently banned ping list! =)
Man! You are brave! Me, I couldn’t have posted that without extreme fear of a typo or dropped word putting me ON the list. (grin)
lol
— Theres gotta be some way of keeping this going long enough to get there.
Ahem! You could, uh, try talking to yourself? No—already been done.
Do you mind if I borrow the dancing MC Hammer graphic with his parachute pants?
cut and paste is your friend!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.