The Corrosion of Conservatism

[TrumpTrainCA]

Are you trying to test me? Statism, Progressivism, Socialism, its all a matter of centralized government control, both socially and economically. You calling me a statist is just the height of ignorance, not too surprising.

Now here is my question to you: How do you rate Ronald Reagan as a president.

You got banned already? Wow I have only seen him post for one day. What happened

 

[annabenedetti]

You got banned already? Wow I have only seen him post for one day. What happened

:rain:

 

[JudgeRightly]

You got banned already? Wow I have only seen him post for one day. What happened

Intentional Blasphemy--taking God's name in vain.

 

[TrumpTrainCA]

Intentional Blasphemy--taking God's name in vain.

You can get banned for taking God's name in vain? I'm glad I asked. I might have accidentally stepped in it myself one day

 

[Arthur Brain]

You can get banned for taking God's name in vain? I'm glad I asked. I might have accidentally stepped in it myself one day

:think:

Too easy...

 

[ok doser]

LOL. So, you come up with a straw man, defeat the straw man, and think you've won a point. The only point you won by doing that is the point of making yourself look dishonest.

or simple-minded :thumb:

LOL. So, I came up with a straw man, defeated the straw man then asked a simple-minded doser if he got out much.

Since, he didn't answer....

ummmmm

no

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...Conservatism&p=5328810&viewfull=1#post5328810

 

[quip]

or simple-minded :thumb:




ummmmm

no

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...Conservatism&p=5328810&viewfull=1#post5328810

Oh. So you're narcisistic enough to actually think I was flirting with you! Huh...look at me giving you the benefit of the doubt. :idunno:

My bad!! :chuckle:

 

[ok doser]

Oh. So you're narcisistic enough to actually think I was flirting with you! Huh...look at me giving you the benefit of the doubt. :idunno:

My bad!! :chuckle:

and you completely sidestep the meat of my response


perhaps it's time for a break from you

 

[WizardofOz]

Sorry, what? Antithetical?

Free enterprise - are trade tariffs "free enterprise"?
Private ownership - should the Trump administrations be able to take away private lands to build a border wall?

Does "quasi-conservatism" or neoconservatism have an entry in your dictionary? :think:

Like drb said, statism.

 

[WizardofOz]

Dude, I listen to Mark Levin every day

Dude, why? :think:

 

[JudgeRightly]

Free enterprise - are trade tariffs "free enterprise"?

Nope. Your point?

Private ownership - should the Trump administrations be able to take away private lands to build a border wall?

The government needs the ability to buy and sell goods, including real property, for infrastructure and for criminal justice and defence of the nation. So to answer your question, yes, the government (not just the Trump administration) should be able to buy lands to build a border wall, even if it means forcing a sale at a higher value than the land is worth. The government will either be fair or not fair, but the fact remains that the government has the right to do so.

Does "quasi-conservatism" or neoconservatism have an entry in your dictionary? :think:

Of course they do. What's your point?

I have provided the definition of "conservatism."

Something that does not fit that definition is, by definition, NOT conservatism.

Like drb said, statism.

Which is NOT conservatism, by definition.

 

[quip]

and you completely sidestep the meat of my response


perhaps it's time for a break from you

:chuckle:

 

[ok doser]

LOL. So, you come up with a straw man, defeat the straw man, and think you've won a point. The only point you won by doing that is the point of making yourself look dishonest.

and then when i remind him that i replied way back when, he replies with more strawmen and avoidance

looks like he's not interested in having a real discussion, just playing games :sigh:

 

[WizardofOz]

Nope. Your point?

That trade tariffs do not fit the definition of 'conservative' that you provided.

The government needs the ability to buy and sell goods, including real property, for infrastructure and for criminal justice and defence of the nation. So to answer your question, yes, the government (not just the Trump administration) should be able to buy lands to build a border wall, even if it means forcing a sale at a higher value than the land is worth. The government will either be fair or not fair, but the fact remains that the government has the right to do so.

And women have the right to abort. The question is not that they have they right (they clearly do) it is whether or not they should have that right and whether a self-described 'conservative' should support such. Again, you provided the definition but eminent domain does not seem to fit it, does it?

Does the government taking away private property support private ownership? :think:
Once again, your definition is mutually exclusive to modern 'conservative' ideology.

Something that does not fit that definition is, by definition, NOT conservatism.

That's right. Hopefully by now you see my point.

Which is NOT conservatism, by definition.

Exactly. Trade tariffs are statist, eminent domain land grabs are statist. The definition that you provided does not support what we see a "conservative" president trying to do.

 

[ok doser]

LOL. So, you come up with a straw man, defeat the straw man, and think you've won a point. The only point you won by doing that is the point of making yourself look dishonest.

by the way, i never understood this practice of keeping score or winning "points" - i've never been interested in any of that game-playing - much more interested in understanding someone's beliefs and thought processes, and that's very difficult when dealing with the inherently dishonest

 

[ok doser]

That trade tariffs do not fit the definition of 'conservative' that you provided.



And women have the right to abort. The question is not that they have they right (they clearly do) it is whether or not they should have that right and whether a self-described 'conservative' should support such. Again, you provided the definition but eminent domain does not seem to fit it, does it?

Does the government taking away private property support private ownership? :think:
Once again, your definition is mutually exclusive to modern 'conservative' ideology.



That's right. Hopefully by now you see my point.



Exactly. Trade tariffs are statist, eminent domain land grabs are statist. The definition that you provided does not support what we see a "conservative" president trying to do.

are the values listed as "conservative" values absolute?

if so, then it appears that the true "conservative" position is the anarchist position - the abolition of all government - the anti-statist position taken to it's natural conclusion, the destruction of the state


or am i missing something?

 

[annabenedetti]

- much more interested in understanding someone's beliefs and thought processes

:rotfl:

 

[ok doser]

:rotfl:

c'mon anna - you can do better than that

 

[WizardofOz]

are the values listed as "conservative" values absolute?

if so, then it appears that the true "conservative" position is the the anarchist position - the abolition of all government

Not sure where you're getting that :idunno:

or am i missing something?

Someone is. There is certainly a disconnect between the rather simplistic dictionary definition that [MENTION=16942]JudgeRightly[/MENTION] is trotting out and what we actually see going on.

Perhaps posting a dictionary definition doesn't cover many bases. Or any :thumb:

 

[ok doser]

Not sure where you're getting that :idunno:

absolute private ownership negates a state with taxes and assets

absolute free enterprise negates any state interference (and any state action will be interference to someone, in some form)