Skip all the BS and just get to the point, you want conservatives to quit seeking true conservatives, and want them to move left and start voting for candidates who are openly liberal on social issues.
Me: [I]f you don't put freedom from government first whether you call yourself a Conservative or Donald Duck, you advance the socialist agenda, howbeit unwittingly. And THAT's an HISTORICAL fact Jack.
That’s the point. For some reason, you seem offended or upset by the idea of putting freedom first. You accuse me of all kinds of nasty things against conservatives which I have not said nor is true but you stubbornly hold to your conclusions anyway. There’s no explicit reason for doing so, but there may very well be some implicit reasons. It's hard to tell because you are either unable or unwilling to define what you mean by “conservative” and make no distinction between “conservative” and “social conservative.”
Nevertheless, I'm guessing that there may some kind of basic enmity between at least certain kinds of “conservatism” and the idea of freedom from government excess. Therefore, there’s stuff to these discussions that I find worth pursing, but I’m going to have to get back to it later (possibly months later) because I’ve got to get back to my main effort right now – studying for the State Bar (although in some respects, these discussions are more interesting to me).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3131111/posts?page=322#322
I’m bookmarking our thread and will get back to this later. Some bullet points I’m listing to remind myself what to look into and possibly discuss.
- I think we both have in common an abhorrence of the evils that are being perpetrated upon society. I think the difference between us is how we get to minimizing those evils (evil will never be completely gone until we have a new heaven and new earth (Revelation 21:1)).
- there’s a certain immaturity in “black-and-white” thinking
- grace vs. the law; redeemed vs. unredeemed society
- the possibility that some “conservatives” are afraid of freedom from government interference (as the Left is but for different reasons) because without government, more evil than ever might be unleashed upon our society.
- the problem with the above statement in light of the fact that although the rule of law (the U.S. Constitution) has protected us from the evils of the oppressive rule of man, government has gone increasingly outside its constitutional limits and threatens to increasingly rule by the whim of man.
- the fairly obvious parade of horribles and evils that has been perpetrated upon us unconstitutionally by government and more so as our government has illegally and unconstitutionally grown larger. A sampling of some of the evils big government sponsors:
***“sodomite rights” (a legal oxymoron) – forwarded by BIG GOVERNMENT;
***the infanticide of around 70 million unborn – state anti-abortion laws prevented by BIG GOVERNMENT
***sexual perversion taught to children as young as kindergarteners – forced upon them by BIG GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS
***throughout history, more people (hundreds of millions) have been murdered by their own GOVERNMENT than by any invading army
- the more subtle issue and seeming contradiction of the law – the rule of law (the Constitution) protects us from the rule of man and yet as the rule of law is put to one side, the rule of man perpetuates volumes and volumes of new laws, many of which are invalid and unconstitutional. Nevertheless, it’s possible that some “conservatives” are afraid that if we didn’t have all these laws, more evil would be perpetrated on our society although both theory and historical evidence suggest otherwise.
- So it’s possible the basic issue between you and me is that freedom may feel like a threat to you if it means the unleashing of a greater flood of evils than we already have even though historical and current evidence is just the opposite: the bigger government has grown and the more laws passed, the more evil has been promoted, framed by invalid laws and unconstitutional government.
Bye.