Question Tea Partiers

[raderag]

Hi There,

A question for the tea partiers out there.

NWO = New World Order.

 

[Oddball]

Just for the record, there's nothing remotely "conservative" about so-called social conservatism.

 

[Si modo]

Just for the record, there's nothing remotely "conservative" about so-called social conservatism.

True, except the Constitution and all it restricts and allows.

 

[eflatminor]

As a Classical Liberal

 

[raderag]

Just for the record, there's nothing remotely "conservative" about so-called social conservatism.

Depends on how you define the term. Burke and Kirk would not agree with you on that one. Perhaps Paine and Jefferson, but they didn't consider themselves conservative.

 

[JWBooth]

Hi There,

A question for the tea partiers out there.

NWO = New World Order.

So where is the option for 19th century reactionaries like myself?

 

[WillowTree]

Sounds to me like it should read "question for libertarians" donut?

 

[AmericanFirst]

Sounds like a stupid question to me. Our founding forefathers could not be called conservative or liberal according to todays standards. They definetly were more conservative than liberal.

 

[raderag]

Sounds like a stupid question to me. Our founding forefathers could not be called conservative or liberal according to todays standards. They definetly were more conservative than liberal.

If being "socially conservative" is not truly conservative as one poster put it, what would they be?

They ranged from classically conservative (i.e. Alexander Hamilton/John Adams) to classically liberal (i.e. Thomas Jefferson), to radically liberal (i.e. Thomas Paine).

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I usually describe myself as "handsome."

 

[Jackson]

The Tea Partyy and the NWO are two different ideas.