What kind of Conservative are you?

[INPatriot]

Taking previous posts in mind there is an appreciation of the ardent fervor with which the INGO community expresses their passion for various platforms in regards to conservatism. Conservatives cannot afford to be alphas; rather they must be apex predators that live solely at the top of the food chain of personal liberty and the dignity of the individual. Though many regard ardent fervor and passion as fuses which ignite irrational arguments and dug in positions, I can appreciate fervor and passion as bedrocks of stewardship. As has been pointed out, the genesis of conservatism is to safeguard something held dear to ensure the next generation is able to protect and pass on something greater than was protected and passed on to them.

Conservatism may best be likened to the selection of various cuts of beef at a fine steakhouse; all prime cut from the same source, mostly seasoned or prepared the same way with some finer nuances or pairings that complement the finish of the dish. All are delicious and palatable, one may be the favorite and most preferred and none are terrible.

My brand of conservatism should not matter and your brand of conservatism does not matter. At this point, in an electoral cycle, the only conservatism that matters to me is UNIFIED conservatism. Instead of focusing on the small things individuals find in disagreement, focus on what is most agreed right now - the defeat of the Clinton machine.

 

[Twangbanger]

Taking previous posts in mind there is an appreciation of the ardent fervor with which the INGO community expresses their passion for various platforms in regards to conservatism...

...My brand of conservatism should not matter and your brand of conservatism does not matter. At this point, in an electoral cycle, the only conservatism that matters to me is UNIFIED conservatism. Instead of focusing on the small things individuals find in disagreement, focus on what is most agreed right now - the defeat of the Clinton machine.

What's that you say?

No, no...a thousand times no! To ensconce oneself within the warm embrace of an epistemological circle-jerk, and argue the finer points of History while liberals run the world...that, THAT, my friend, is what is good in life!

If a pragmatist ever got the GOP nomination...hoo-wee! I'd hate to think about the stink that might cause.

 

[2A_Tom]

-the defeat of the Clinton machine.

Very well said. Repped.

Twangbanger What's that you say?

No, no...a thousand times no! To ensconce oneself within the warm embrace of an epistemological circle-jerk, and argue the finer points of History while liberals run the world...that, THAT, my friend, is what is good in life!

That is the normal state of things, only Christians and republicans shoot their own.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I am the kind of conservative that knows the difference between principle and principal. And I don't even have a doctorate.

"The principal is your PAL." Worked in grade school, works as an adult.

 

[indiucky]

It's called faith for a reason, trying to reason out faith with science is cringe worthy.

Faith is based upon reason and is evidence based....The divide between science and religion is recent, last 20 years or so, and I have never seen any disconnect between science and religion...None....Zip...Nada....

Trying to discount religion with science is not exactly "cringe worthy" but it does show a lack of intellectual curiosity more suited to a Church Bishop in the 15th century than a child of the enlightenment...

Etymology. The English word faith is thought to date from 1200–50, from the Middle English feith, via Anglo-French fed, Old French feid, feit from Latin fidem, accusative of fidēs (trust), akin to fīdere (to trust).

 

[BADWOLF]

Our righteousness is as filthy rags to the Lord. You want facts…? here are the facts….Thou shalt not kill (murder). When is it human….The bible says that God said.."Before you were born, I knew you, before you were born I knew your name." David said in the Psalms…"I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Thou O'Lord knitted all my bones and sinews together when as yet there was not, and thou hid me in my mothers belly." There are some facts that trump any silly school biology "facts".

I'm not talking righteousness, I'm talking our personal morality we strive for. But fall short of.

 

[BADWOLF]

Just curious, have you always been acting like a jerk on this board or is this a new thing? I don't recall reading your posts before tonight and every one is a jab at someone or a snarky question back to someone.

The point he's getting at is, as a Christian if your neighbor is running a sex change clinic out of his house and you are Morley against it. Is it your place to stop him... The answer is no its your place if you believe its wrong, is not to open your own sex change clinic nor support his clinic with donations.

 

[BADWOLF]

So I guess as a libertarian I'm the polar opposite of a progressive, liberal, Democrat. Small government only enough to maintain infrastructure, religion & faith are personal not public. And laws should be written and applied only when their is a victim.

 

[INPatriot]

What's that you say?

No, no...a thousand times no! To ensconce oneself within the warm embrace of an epistemological circle-jerk, and argue the finer points of History while liberals run the world...that, THAT, my friend, is what is good in life!

If a pragmatist ever got the GOP nomination...hoo-wee! I'd hate to think about the stink that might cause.

There are no thoughts of warm enveloped kumbaya moments and zero attempt to create a jackatorium based on Republican Party talking points and platform. There does not need to be any further validation of the problems this nation faces. We know they are here. We see them. We experience them. Hurling the cynics ban will do nothing to resolve the issues of increasing government and how it the controls and restricts the vitality of America.

Nothing in my statement was waxing poetic about what used to be. In regards to pragmatism, if champions of limited government were as pragmatic as most of us like to think we are we wouldn't be sitting in circular firing squads and cannibalising our own in disagreement over secondary and tertiary issues.

True pragmatism is recognizing the problem (the failures of socialism), assessing the threat (Hillary Clinton will make Barack Obama look like a VBS volunteer) and finding a solution (the election of Donald Trump). That's it. There are only two outcomes to this. Hillary wins or Trump wins. One can rationalize until the Second Coming the virtue in voting for Gary Johnson (or Jill Stein) and how it relates to purity of political ideology but neither stands a chance at holding the office of George Washington.

To your point sir, we've already crossed that threshold. While the various champions of conservatism - the paleoconservatives, the Libertarians, the traditional, the social/Religious Right, et al - have been arguing how their take shaped the world, the liberals and their ideology of political correctness are ruining what is left of truly free people and subsequent generations.

Will refusing to unify around Donald Trump thus handing the election to Hillary Clinton really put us closer to limited government? We now have seen Hillary Clinton's modus operandi in regards to private servers and email scandals. We have seen the motives of the Clinton Foundation as it related to pay to play with Hillary's State Deparment and whatever promises were made as a result of future elections, and as the fundraising arm of their machine. We are now seeing the collusion with the DNC to monopolize a primary victory and silence voice of opposition within their own party. They have believed themselves to be above the law as a first family, former first family, Senator and Secretary of State. Imagine the exponential increase in bravado in what she believes she could get away with as entitled head of the Executive Branch.

Instead of focusing on the disagreement I have with Trump, I will focus on what we have in agreement. I encourage others to do the same and unify around this campaign. Paraphrasing John Maynard Keynes, a man with whom I've nothing in common, "As the facts change so do opinions, what will you do sir?"

 

[ATM]

...True pragmatism is recognizing the problem (the failures of socialism), assessing the threat (Hillary Clinton will make Barack Obama look like a VBS volunteer) and finding a solution (the election of Donald Trump). That's it...

If you'd left out the parenthetical injections, I could hardly disagree. But, you filled in the blanks with specifics from your own perceived priority list or playbook and left it wide open to be dismissed. So, that's simply not it.

...Will refusing to unify around Donald Trump thus handing the election to Hillary Clinton really put us closer to limited government?

Absolutely, much closer.

 

[Tombs]

Faith is based upon reason and is evidence based....The divide between science and religion is recent, last 20 years or so, and I have never seen any disconnect between science and religion...None....Zip...Nada....

Trying to discount religion with science is not exactly "cringe worthy" but it does show a lack of intellectual curiosity more suited to a Church Bishop in the 15th century than a child of the enlightenment...

Etymology. The English word faith is thought to date from 1200–50, from the Middle English feith, via Anglo-French fed, Old French feid, feit from Latin fidem, accusative of fidēs (trust), akin to fīdere (to trust).

Faith has always been about belief in something when you have no way to know for sure.

It would cease to be faith if you had evidence. Open a dictionary. Even the bible recognizes this, and makes quite a big point on it.

 

[PaulF]

In another thread, I made a reference to the constant interpersonal bickering that can occur here.

It, simply put, is poison.

Left unchecked, this type of thing devolves from on-topic tit-for-tat, to trading barbs for personal "points".

This type of behavior is unseemly. If we, as INGO users, are unable to stop ourselves from behaving this way the INGO moderators will see to it that we cannot poison the well for others.

I hope everyone understands. I will not be repeating myself.

This has been your In-thread warning, this thread will now be re-opened.

 

[ATM]

Faith has always been about belief in something when you have no way to know for sure.

It would cease to be faith if you had evidence. Open a dictionary. Even the bible recognizes this, and makes quite a big point on it.

Perhaps you should open a dictionary and compare evidence with proof, your attempt to conflate the two here doesn't hold water.

 

[indiucky]

Faith has always been about belief in something when you have no way to know for sure.

It would cease to be faith if you had evidence. Open a dictionary. Even the bible recognizes this, and makes quite a big point on it.

I showed you the root of the word faith...Faith is evidence based...I have "opened dictionaries" and am quite well read...If one is an atheist and has no faith in their belief then what do they have??? Nothing...

Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theism are all faith based concepts...You "trust" based upon the evidence you have researched...I.E. I have faith in my belief based upon my research and the evidence I have seen....

No need to be rude or snarky....

You would never see (or hear) Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, (maybe Krauss but he is a wee bit moronic when it comes to philosophy) ever making a statement like you made...Especially in a debate......

Never give up your intellectual curiosity....It will leave you stagnant or on pause...

 

[Twangbanger]

There are no thoughts of warm enveloped kumbaya moments and zero attempt to create a jackatorium based on Republican Party talking points and platform. There does not need to be any further validation of the problems this nation faces. We know they are here. We see them. We experience them. Hurling the cynics ban will do nothing to resolve the issues of increasing government and how it the controls and restricts the vitality of America.

Nothing in my statement was waxing poetic about what used to be. In regards to pragmatism, if champions of limited government were as pragmatic as most of us like to think we are we wouldn't be sitting in circular firing squads and cannibalising our own in disagreement over secondary and tertiary issues.

True pragmatism is recognizing the problem (the failures of socialism), assessing the threat (Hillary Clinton will make Barack Obama look like a VBS volunteer) and finding a solution (the election of Donald Trump). That's it. There are only two outcomes to this. Hillary wins or Trump wins. One can rationalize until the Second Coming the virtue in voting for Gary Johnson (or Jill Stein) and how it relates to purity of political ideology but neither stands a chance at holding the office of George Washington.

To your point sir, we've already crossed that threshold. While the various champions of conservatism - the paleoconservatives, the Libertarians, the traditional, the social/Religious Right, et al - have been arguing how their take shaped the world, the liberals and their ideology of political correctness are ruining what is left of truly free people and subsequent generations.

Will refusing to unify around Donald Trump thus handing the election to Hillary Clinton really put us closer to limited government? We now have seen Hillary Clinton's modus operandi in regards to private servers and email scandals. We have seen the motives of the Clinton Foundation as it related to pay to play with Hillary's State Deparment and whatever promises were made as a result of future elections, and as the fundraising arm of their machine. We are now seeing the collusion with the DNC to monopolize a primary victory and silence voice of opposition within their own party. They have believed themselves to be above the law as a first family, former first family, Senator and Secretary of State. Imagine the exponential increase in bravado in what she believes she could get away with as entitled head of the Executive Branch.

Instead of focusing on the disagreement I have with Trump, I will focus on what we have in agreement. I encourage others to do the same and unify around this campaign. Paraphrasing John Maynard Keynes, a man with whom I've nothing in common, "As the facts change so do opinions, what will you do sir?"

We seem to be on the same page.

 

[2A_Tom]

Faith is based upon reason and is evidence based....The divide between science and religion is recent, last 20 years or so, and I have never seen any disconnect between science and religion...None....Zip...Nada....

Trying to discount religion with science is not exactly "cringe worthy" but it does show a lack of intellectual curiosity more suited to a Church Bishop in the 15th century than a child of the enlightenment...

Etymology. The English word faith is thought to date from 1200–50, from the Middle English feith, via Anglo-French fed, Old French feid, feit from Latin fidem, accusative of fidēs (trust), akin to fīdere (to trust).

Well yeah, True science in the eyes of newton and others of his time was searching for knowlege. The were searching foe the truths that God had ordered. Natural history started as a study of the nature of God (go to the ant thou sluggard). God is Omniscient see the root.

Physics, geology, entomology or whatever sciences are supposed to be a search for knowledge.


sci·ence
[ sahy- uhns]
NOUN
1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.
systematized knowledge in general.
5.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study

Hence the scientific method.

So called intelectuals have co-opted the word, discounted God and thrown out the scientific method, and given us the big bang, evolution, global warming and hundreds of thousnds of years... sorry millions and millions... sorry billions and billions of years ago.

It is not new, Paul warned timothy about it about 2000 years ago.

 

[2A_Tom]

Will refusing to unify around Donald Trump thus handing the election to Hillary Clinton really put us closer to limited government?

Absolutely, much closer.

Sir, with all due respect, please persuade me that electing Hillary Clinton will bring us closer to limited government.

 

[jamil]

There are no thoughts of warm enveloped kumbaya moments and zero attempt to create a jackatorium based on Republican Party talking points and platform. There does not need to be any further validation of the problems this nation faces. We know they are here. We see them. We experience them. Hurling the cynics ban will do nothing to resolve the issues of increasing government and how it the controls and restricts the vitality of America.

Nothing in my statement was waxing poetic about what used to be. In regards to pragmatism, if champions of limited government were as pragmatic as most of us like to think we are we wouldn't be sitting in circular firing squads and cannibalising our own in disagreement over secondary and tertiary issues.

True pragmatism is recognizing the problem (the failures of socialism), assessing the threat (Hillary Clinton will make Barack Obama look like a VBS volunteer) and finding a solution (the election of Donald Trump). That's it. There are only two outcomes to this. Hillary wins or Trump wins. One can rationalize until the Second Coming the virtue in voting for Gary Johnson (or Jill Stein) and how it relates to purity of political ideology but neither stands a chance at holding the office of George Washington.

To your point sir, we've already crossed that threshold. While the various champions of conservatism - the paleoconservatives, the Libertarians, the traditional, the social/Religious Right, et al - have been arguing how their take shaped the world, the liberals and their ideology of political correctness are ruining what is left of truly free people and subsequent generations.

Will refusing to unify around Donald Trump thus handing the election to Hillary Clinton really put us closer to limited government? We now have seen Hillary Clinton's modus operandi in regards to private servers and email scandals. We have seen the motives of the Clinton Foundation as it related to pay to play with Hillary's State Deparment and whatever promises were made as a result of future elections, and as the fundraising arm of their machine. We are now seeing the collusion with the DNC to monopolize a primary victory and silence voice of opposition within their own party. They have believed themselves to be above the law as a first family, former first family, Senator and Secretary of State. Imagine the exponential increase in bravado in what she believes she could get away with as entitled head of the Executive Branch.

Instead of focusing on the disagreement I have with Trump, I will focus on what we have in agreement. I encourage others to do the same and unify around this campaign. Paraphrasing John Maynard Keynes, a man with whom I've nothing in common, "As the facts change so do opinions, what will you do sir?"

I do agree with a lot here. Just a couple of comments.

If we were pragmatic we could develop a platform that is an intersection of ideals rather than insisting on a non-contradictory union. But each group wants their pet list included, the inclusions of which tends to turn one or more of the other factions. For example, libertarian leaners want the war on drugs to end. Other factions reject that. Social conservatives don't want gay marriage. That's a losing issue for others. Each faction has some things they insist on having before they'll give their full support. Dems have the same kinds of issues but are usually more pragmatic. But Bernie has brought in some unrelenting idealism into the mix that's poison to their pragmatism. So having just two main parties pigeon-holes a diverse ideological population into just two groups. Pragmatism is crucial for either party to have a chance to beat the other.

But nevertheless, limited government is one of the intersection ideas. We should be able to all agree on that. But, with Trump, there is a train of thought that questions whether unifying around him would put us any closer to limited government. After the convention, it's hard to imagine a Trump administration actually doing that.

 

[jamil]

Sir, with all due respect, please persuade me that electing Hillary Clinton will bring us closer to limited government.

As I said in the previous post, please persuade me that electing Trump will bring us closer to limited government. If it's a choice of which will increase government more, I'm not sure that's a goal that interests me a whole lot.

 

[2A_Tom]

I don't see the moral revelalance.

Christians MUST be as bad as muslims, if trump and clinton are the same.