Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yup.
And I guess instead of asking "who is making LESS than you were 20 years ago" the question should be "has your standard of living decreased in the last 20 years".
Mine certainly hasn't.
Cranky, complaining, older, white people stuck in the past who have a do nothing attitude for government that takes the form of anti-government ideology. That's what a Conservative is.
Absolutely. But in 1776 the term "liberal" was someone who embraced the concept that people give the government authority, and that the best government was one that should govern least. Today the opposite is true.A lot of people have commented on this about how the words don't mean what they used to, etc. But if you actually think about it, I think for most people the literal definitions of the words and the ideologies line up rather well where the role of government is concerned. Don't 'conservatives' want government to behave 'conservatively'? That is being conservative with money and spend less. Be conservative as to governments intrusivness into our lives? Doesn't it seem that liberals support 'liberal' use of government and liberal use of money for social benefit?
Clearly it is governing more. Conservatives believe that Judaeo-Christian values are the sound basis for a modern society, and that if people adhere to these set of ethics then laws defining them are not necessary. But, as "progressives" exert more and more influence on society, tearing down traditions and ethical barriers, laws are needed to regulate what was historically seen as obviously taboo.Is enacting a constitutional amendment to define marriage between one man and one woman governing more, or governing less?....
Cranky, complaining, older, white people stuck in the past who have a do nothing attitude for government that takes the form of anti-government ideology. That's what a Conservative is.
Clearly it is governing more. Conservatives believe that Judaeo-Christian values are the sound basis for a modern society, and that if people adhere to these set of ethics then laws defining them are not necessary. But, as "progressives" exert more and more influence on society, tearing down traditions and ethical barriers, laws are needed to regulate what was historically seen as obviously taboo.
An example of this is laws prohibiting sodomy. Originally there were no such laws, as it was considered sinful and therefore inherently taboo. Then "progressives" tore down that moral barrier, so conservatives stepped in and created anti-sodomy laws. Then progressives forced removal of those laws on the basis that government should not govern morality. Now progressives want to go further and require, through gay marriage, that sodomy be, in effect, sanctioned by the government.A.k.a., criminal. More laws are needed because the changes have lead to more crime.
Clearly it is governing more. Conservatives believe that Judaeo-Christian values are the sound basis for a modern society, and that if people adhere to these set of ethics then laws defining them are not necessary. But, as "progressives" exert more and more influence on society, tearing down traditions and ethical barriers, laws are needed to regulate what was historically seen as obviously taboo.
An example of this is laws prohibiting sodomy. Originally there were no such laws, as it was considered sinful and therefore inherently taboo. Then "progressives" tore down that moral barrier, so conservatives stepped in and created anti-sodomy laws. Then progressives forced removal of those laws on the basis that government should not govern morality. Now progressives want to go further and require, through gay marriage, that sodomy be, in effect, sanctioned by the government.
Again, the basis of our laws is Judaeo-Christian values. If we lose those values then I believe that society will become corrupt and immoral. This is why people came from Europe to America centuries ago. As a conservative I will do whatever I can to maintain those values.Why do you even need moral laws anyway? If society wants to do immoral things that don't harm others than what's the big deal? Why should they have to follow a 'moral code' they don't agree with?
Gay marriage wouldn't be sanctioning sodomy it would be remaining neutral. Giving gay couples more rights would be sanctioning it though.
That's a point.Because "moral" laws are the structure by which society holds itself together. If you make morality "illegal" then you are dependent upon outside structure..and if that structure collapses, then your society collapses.
With morality the structure is inherent, and therefore indestructible.
Whatever two adults do in the privacy of their own homes should be their own business. If its not in conformance with societal or ethical standards then keep it private. This is a compromise that all conservatives that I know are willing to accept. Why force it into the public sphere?
It seems to me that the argument here is, conservatives are for less government as long as people are doing what conservatives want....
Thus increased military spending, for example, shouldn't be subject to congressional approval if there is an argument to be made that increased military spending is morally correct.
And in the context specifically of Judeo Christian ethics, this sounds disturbingly like an argument for a religious state.
I don't think this is reality, in my experience reality is that people are diverse and their equality is self-evident.
The argument is that Conservatives want what our Founders wanted. Specifically, the ideals presented in the Declaration of Independence.It seems to me that the argument here is, conservatives are for less government as long as people are doing what conservatives want.........
Again, I believe that no such laws are needed if people are willing to live within ethical standards. These laws for the most part have been repealed and every conservative that I have known is willing to accept the compromise as I have presented it. It appears that the "progressives" are unwilling to accept the compromise, and want to put sodomy on public display by way of gay marriage.I didn't realize there was broad acceptance of it as long as it was in private, isn't that in contrast to the anti-sodomy laws?
