PREECHR POSTED SOMETHING THAT I CAN READ WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A BATHROOM BREAK! YES!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Preechr
Since when do you pick on Libertarians?
|
Look down the board a bit, "Libertarianism: Marxism of the Right."
Quote:
|
Compassionate conservatism is not conservatism. Dubya is not a conservative. Compassion is something you feel for something below you. A political movement dedicated permanently to being conservative must have some sort of game plan that involves keeping a certain segment of society in a position that deserves compassion, wouldn't you think?
|
I think you're on to something here, which is sort of like what I said in response to abcdefgxxq2r.....
Religious, so-called "conservatives" want to regulate television, they want to regulate film, while at the same time they often emvrace religious forms of expression that tend to blur the lines between state and religion. These are generally the same places that wanted to regulate behavior and alcoholic consumption years ago. They're supportive of federal funds being given to religious charity organizations, etc. etc.
However, I dispute your notion that an expression of charity and compassion makes you less conservative. If anything, the problem with conservatism isn't that its followers are incosistent
today, but rather, the ideology itself has been inconsistent over the years.
After all, conservatives such as Metternich and even Disraeli to a
certain degree believed in the empowerment of the masses and the "responsibility" the aristocracy had towards the lower classes and the poor. This "aristocratic responsibility" is the same argument some have made in calling FDR a conservative (an argument I'm sure you laugh at, Preech). Metternich was also an internationalist, much like the dreaded "neo-cons" of the past 20-30 years.
Quote:
|
I would probably have to read more than the first few lines of your posting to see if that's in any way on topic, but I get bored too easily for that.
|
You're certainly one to talk.
Hybrid Mode
