• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

44 to reverse 43's executive orders

I personally see same sex marriage as something that should be dealt with by local governemnts, if marraige MSUT be included in the domain of goverenance.

But primarily, no marriage, gay or straight, should be an issue that the government involves itself with.
 
Forward doesn't necessarily denote positive. It means that things are progressing. If I was to say that a war was progressing to more bloodshed and violence that wouldn't be a positive thing, but the term still works. And as far as the rest of your comment that is a matter of opinion as well.
Yes we seem to have your opinion, which is that allowing society to "progress" towards long dead standards of behavior of ancient Sodom and Greece is somehow inevitable and good, and then we have my opinion, that you "progressives" will be stopped, then driven back so society can elevate its standards of behavior to one-man one-woman lifelong relationships.
 
Yes we seem to have your opinion, which is that allowing society to "progress" towards long dead standards of behavior of ancient Sodom and Greece is somehow inevitable and good, and then we have my opinion, that you "progressives" will be stopped, then driven back so society can elevate its standards of behavior to one-man one-woman lifelong relationships.

Well, good luck with that. :lol:
 
Not marriage. Not in 5000 years anyway. *shrug*

The tradition hasn't changed from 5000 yrs ago? WTF are you smoking? Polygamy was the norm and women were basically property.
 
Not marriage. Not in 5000 years anyway. *shrug*

Just because something is a tradition for a long time doesn't mean that it's right. Slavery was a tradition for a long time too.

Of course, this argument boils down one of the essential differences between liberals and conservatives. Liberals want things to progress and evolve and Conservatives want things to stay the same or "traditional".
 
Just because something is a tradition for a long time doesn't mean that it's right. Slavery was a tradition for a long time too.

Of course, this argument boils down one of the essential differences between liberals and conservatives. Liberals want things to progress and evolve and Conservatives want things to stay the same or "traditional".
That's a typical liberal distortion as well as a complete misunderstanding f conservative principles. It is impossible to debate someone who is ignorant of the basics.
 
I don't think I'll ever understand the hatred that Conservatives have for San Francisco. Yeah, it's a pretty liberal minded place and it was the hub of the 60's drug era. So what? Honestly, why is San Francisco so horrible?

You have a profound tendency to OVER-Generalize. What is this "perceived" Conservative hate for San Francisco? I am a Conservative and I love the city; to visit that is. I wouldn't want to try living there because the cost of living there is humongous.

Carry on. :roll:
 
You have a profound tendency to OVER-Generalize. What is this "perceived" Conservative hate for San Francisco? I am a Conservative and I love the city; to visit that is. I wouldn't want to try living there because the cost of living there is humongous.

Carry on. :roll:

Obviously you haven't read previous posts in the thread. I wasn't over-generalizing. I was specifically addressing the Conservatives who felt that way. I'm sorry that I didn't clarify that more, but I thought it was kind of understood. :roll:
One poster was advocating sending Gitmo detainees to live in San Fran and another wanted the place nuked. I've seen plenty of other Conservatives spewing trash talk about San Fran as well.
 
That's a typical liberal distortion as well as a complete misunderstanding f conservative principles. It is impossible to debate someone who is ignorant of the basics.

conservative - disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

Oh, and by the way, re-read my post.

Of course, this argument boils down one of the essential differences between liberals and conservatives. Liberals want things to progress and evolve and Conservatives want things to stay the same or "traditional".
 
Obviously you haven't read previous posts in the thread. I wasn't over-generalizing. I was specifically addressing the Conservatives who felt that way. I'm sorry that I didn't clarify that more, but I thought it was kind of understood. :roll:
One poster was advocating sending Gitmo detainees to live in San Fran and another wanted the place nuked. I've seen plenty of other Conservatives spewing trash talk about San Fran as well.

So what you are saying is that you didn't really mean this:

"I'll ever understand the hatred that Conservatives have for San Francisco."

You meant this? "I'll ever understand the hatred that Conservatives on this thread have for San Francisco."

:roll:
 
conservative - disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

...
That's what happens when you use a simple dictionary definition to try and describe a political movement: simplistic nonsense.
 
So what you are saying is that you didn't really mean this:

"I'll ever understand the hatred that Conservatives have for San Francisco."

You meant this? "I'll ever understand the hatred that Conservatives on this thread have for San Francisco."

:roll:

No, I meant some Conservatives. Obviously not all Conservatives hate San Francsico. Like I said, I thought this was kind of understood and could remain unspoken but I obviously was mistaken. :roll:

I could see your point if I was saying this out of the blue, but it's obvious from a couple of comments on the thread that that is what I was referring to. Please, try to read between the lines.
 
Last edited:
That's what happens when you use a simple dictionary definition to try and describe a political movement: simplistic nonsense.

Yes, damn those simplistic dictionaries for telling us what words actually mean! :lol:
 
You have a profound tendency to OVER-Generalize. What is this "perceived" Conservative hate for San Francisco? I am a Conservative and I love the city; to visit that is. I wouldn't want to try living there because the cost of living there is humongous.

Carry on. :roll:

I actually like San Fran, but I wouldn't mind seeing it roll into the sea because of the 1984 NFC Championship Game.

I cried that day (I was 7)
 
So if I were to take the word "liberal" in Webster I would find the platform of the Democrat Party? :roll:

Liberal and Democrat are two different things. One obviously can be a liberal without being a Democrat.
 
So if I were to take the word "liberal" in Webster I would find the platform of the Democrat Party? :roll:

Not all conservatives are Republicans and not all liberals are Democrats.

The problem and trap many people fall in (myself not excluded) is the perceived notion that anything liberal/conservative is bad.

I'm sure most conservatives would agree that the liberal movement to free slaves was a good idea and the liberal movement for women to be able to vote was good. A conservative view on those things would be to keep it like it was.

I don't think there is a 100% conservative out there and I don't think there is a 100% liberal.

Many people are liberal and conservative depending on the issues.
 
Granted; I'll rephrase: So if I were to take the word "liberal" in Webster I would find the platform of the modern Liberal political movement?

I don't know. What is the modern Liberal political movement? The people within the group and their or your interpretation of what a liberal is doesn't change the definition. I personally consider some of my views liberal and some not. You are right that it's not something that can be simplified, but the word itself doesn't change meaning. The people within that political ideology or who align themselves with part or all of that political ideology are going to vary. Liberal is just a word , just as Conservative is and the definitions are what they are and will remain so.
 
I don't know. What is the modern Liberal political movement? The people within the group and their or your interpretation of what a liberal is doesn't change the definition. I personally consider some of my views liberal and some not. You are right that it's not something that can be simplified, but the word itself doesn't change meaning. The people within that political ideology or who align themselves with part or all of that political ideology are going to vary. Liberal is just a word , just as Conservative is and the definitions are what they are and will remain so.
Actually, the meaning of the two terms has changed over time. For example, the Founders of this country viewed themselves as liberals of the time. The idea that Man derived his freedom from God and that man in turn granted limited powers to government, and that if those powers were not carefully checked then man's liberty was in jeopardy, was a completely liberal view. In 2009, I, as a conservative, I defend those 233 year old "liberal" views.
 
Actually, the meaning of the two terms has changed over time. For example, the Founders of this country viewed themselves as liberals of the time. The idea that Man derived his freedom from God and that man in turn granted limited powers to government, and that if those powers were not carefully checked then man's liberty was in jeopardy, was a completely liberal view. In 2009, I, as a conservative, I defend those 233 year old "liberal" views.

Well, the views of progression were certainly different back then. However, progression has to move forward, it can't just stay in the same place. So therefore, yes, the views of our liberal founding fathers would now be considered Conservative by current standards. It still doesn't change the meaning of the terms "liberal" and "conservative".
 
Well, the views of progression were certainly different back then. However, progression has to move forward, it can't just stay in the same place. So therefore, yes, the views of our liberal founding fathers would now be considered Conservative by current standards. It still doesn't change the meaning of the terms "liberal" and "conservative".
It does when you're talking about how you want to limit the role of federal government, the definition of freedom, and the desired economic system. Modern liberals want the feds to go well beyond their Constitutional mandate. Modern Conservatives understand that with freedom comes personal responsibility; Liberals want freedom from personal responsibility. Conservatives want a free market, capitalist economy; Liberals want a socialist economy.
 
I'm referring to the Judaeo-Christian tradition that still lives on, not some Roman one that was taken over by it.

You mean there should be no separation of church and state?
 
Back
Top Bottom