Conservatism in America - minority or not?

[BlaqueKatt]

50 years ago, 150 years ago, 230 years ago . . . Doesn't make any difference. People should not be expected to apologize for crimes that they had no part in committing, any more than they can expect to take credit for accomplishments that they had no part in achieving.

I'm not asking them to apoligize for them but when they will out and out deny that it ever happened-or don't even know the history of their own party(those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it ring any bells?)-it seems to me I don't want to associate with someone that ignorant.

And correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to remember Obama supporters comparing him to MLK-Obama wasn't even born during the civil-rights struggle, and he's done just the opposite of MLK for same-sex couples(and yes the Dems do usually point out that a Democratic president pushed civil rights-then pull out the "that was ancient history" argument when the foundation of their party is brought up-hypocrisy anyone?)

[smileyeagle1021]

(and yes the Dems do usually point out that a Democratic president pushed civil rights-then pull out the "that was ancient history" argument when the foundation of their party is brought up-hypocrisy anyone?)

The dems are the definition of hypocrisy. The difference between a republican and a dem is that the republican will tell you up front that he's going to screw you.

[bhskittykatt]

And here's another Barr voter!

When I'm asked if I'm a conservative or a liberal, I respond saying I'm a moderate leaning toward conservative. Each side has it's good and bad points. I think the best course exists somewhere in the middle.

The two-party system is ridiculous. You're either one or the other. Black or white. No room for a gray area in between.

During the last election, I saw a brief presentation from the local chapter of the Libertarian Party that cited a study showing something in the neighborhood of 80% of Americans fell into a moderate political philosophy. Unfortunately with the two-party system, people feel they have to pick one side or the other. It's seriously a screwed up system.

[Fryk]

Whenever I'm asked, I always answer this way:

"I don't vote for parties, I vote for people."

[Gravekeeper]

Frankly, when it comes to American politics the term "conservative" is utterly misappropriated. The Republicans are greedy, childish assholes and the Democrats are spineless idiots. I'm impressed Obama hasn't just slapped someone in congress or the senate live on C-SPAN.

Still, the Republicans are currently the greater of the two evils. I've never seen so much childishness, hypocrisy, revisionism, fear monger, constant manufactured outrage and blatant disregard for their own people then in the Republican party over the last 7 or 8 years or so.

Would still pay money to slap a Democrat too though.

With how incredibly little the government accomplishes down there lately I'm impressed you haven't collapsed into a Road Warrior like anarchist state where people kill each other over gas and superbowl tickets. Believe me when I say there really isn't anything more amazing or more terrifying for the rest of us then watching American politics.

To answer the original question though, a fair number still call themselves conservative, but few people still refer to themselves as Republican ( 33% per Pollster ) and out of that denomination, one section holds views so backward they will *never* come anywhere near the mainstream. <cough> Tea Party <cough>>

Of course, 70% of Americans support gays and lesbians in the military, but only 59% support homosexuals in the military. So who the hell knows at this point. >.>

[smileyeagle1021]

Of course, 70% of Americans support gays and lesbians in the military, but only 59% support homosexuals in the military. So who the hell knows at this point. >.>

Oh that's easy to explain... the most recent revision of the Holy Bible uses the word "homosexual" yet doesn't mention gays and lesbians... therefor asking if you approve of gays and lesbians doesn't trigger the Christian reflex as quickly as asking if you approve of homosexuals.
The most terrifying aspect that you forgot to mention Gravekeeper about the US political system is that in almost no other first world country could you pull out a Bible verse and have it be accepted without question as a completely valid argument on whether or not to support a bill.

[Gravekeeper]

The most terrifying aspect that you forgot to mention Gravekeeper about the US political system is that in almost no other first world country could you pull out a Bible verse and have it be accepted without question as a completely valid argument on whether or not to support a bill.

Yes, well, I try to block that fact out most of the time. -.-

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

Oh that's easy to explain... the most recent revision of the Holy Bible uses the word "homosexual" yet doesn't mention gays and lesbians... therefor asking if you approve of gays and lesbians doesn't trigger the Christian reflex as quickly as asking if you approve of homosexuals.
The most terrifying aspect that you forgot to mention Gravekeeper about the US political system is that in almost no other first world country could you pull out a Bible verse and have it be accepted without question as a completely valid argument on whether or not to support a bill.

No buy try passing a law in Saudi Arabia that goes against the Koran and see how far you get with that...

[Hyena Dandy]

that is actually a Neo-con

this is the Republican Oath which the neo-cons that have taken over the Republican party have all but buried.

two main points of it prove that"

I believe in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, age, sex, or national origin. I believe that persons with disabilities should be afforded equal rights, equal justice, and equal opportunity as well.

I believe we must retain those principles worth retaining, yet always be receptive to new ideals with an outlook broad enough to accommodate thoughtful change and varying points of view.


Remember it was Republican president that freed the slaves, and the Democratic party was formed by white slave owners.

The divisions became fully exposed with the 1860 presidential election. The electorate split four ways. The Southern Democrats endorsed slavery, while the Republicans denounced it. The Northern Democrats said democracy required the people to decide on slavery locally.

from this site

A bitter election battle in 1888 marked by unmatched corruption and violence resulted in white Democrats’ taking over the state legislature. To consolidate their power, they worked to suppress the black vote and sharply reduced it through changes in voter registration, election procedures and poll taxes. From 1890 to 1908, starting with Mississippi, Southern Democratic legislators created new constitutions with provisions for voter registration that effectively completed disfranchisement of most African Americans and many poor whites. They created a variety of barriers, including requirements for poll taxes, residency requirements, rule variations, literacy and understanding tests, that achieved power through selective application against minorities, or were particularly hard for the poor to fulfill.
In practice, these provisions, including white primaries, created a maze that blocked most African Americans and many poor whites from voting in Southern states for decades after the turn of the century. Voter registration and turnout dropped sharply across the South. … For decades white Southern Democrats exercised Congressional representation derived from a full count of the population, but they disfranchised several million black and white citizens. Southern white Democrats comprised a powerful voting block in Congress until the mid-20th century. Their power allowed them to defeat legislation against lynching, among other issues.


in 1968. …
The States’ Rights Democratic Party opposed racial integration and wanted to retain Jim Crow laws and white supremacy. The party’s slogan was “Segregation Forever!” There were members of the Democratic party in the 60's that were active in the KKK(the 3 civil rights workers killed in Mississippi who's story was the basis for Mississippi Burning were murdered by Democratic KKK members)

that's less than 50 years ago-have they ever apologized? No they continue to bury the truth.


this is why I will never register as a democrat

While I'm not registered as a Democrat, (I'm a Libertarian) I must take exception to that statement. Its clear that the Democratic Party as it stands NOW is not in favor... I feel that a party is worth only as much as the people it represents. The people the Democratic Party represent now are against slavery, and against racism.

Are you expecting the political party to apologize for something its members did fifty years ago? Its entirely irrelevant to the modern political landscape. The Democratic Party doesn't 'bury the truth' of what its members previously thought. It, like most parties, is not a sovereign entity, and can't be held responsible for what people in it used to do.

I don't hold the current Republican Party responsible for the Great Depression, and I don't think the current Democratic party got us out of it. We can't hold a party responsible for the actions of people who aren't even members anymore. A party is a collection of people sharing the same ideals. They don't necessarily share the same ideals as the people who came before them, only the ideals of each-other.

I'm sure you have your reasons for not joining the Democratic party. And because I have a great amount of faith in your intelligence, I'm sure they're better than the fact that the Democratic Party doesn't have the same ideals it used to.

That's because BOTH parties are corrupt and power and money-hungry. It's the two-party system that's destroying this country. This election I voted independent. I voted for Bob Barr of the Libertarian party since he was the only other candidate on the presidential ballad here in Indiana.

Libertarian-five! I could also have voted for the Constitution Party, but I've read the policies of the Constitution Party.

[smileyeagle1021]

No buy try passing a law in Saudi Arabia that goes against the Koran and see how far you get with that...

Bible, Koran, same hate, different background story.

[Hobbs]

Bible, Koran, same hate, different background story.

Depending on your perspective and interpretation. An athiest can be far more hateful than a Christian or Muslim

[smileyeagle1021]

Depending on your perspective and interpretation. An athiest can be far more hateful than a Christian or Muslim

Yes, but they hate religious people, I'm not a religious person, so I don't have much experience with hateful atheists.

[Hobbs]

Yes, but they hate religious people, I'm not a religious person, so I don't have much experience with hateful atheists.

Quid Pro Quo then...so it's ok to hate from an athiest's standpoint? O_o

[Talon]

Yes, but they hate religious people...

You say that as if it is a good thing. Little if any good can come from hatred.

Depending on your perspective and interpretation. An athiest can be far more hateful than a Christian or Muslim

When atheists start trying to deny equal rights to an entire segment of the population because of some arbitrary belief, or start rioting in the streets because their precious feelings were hurt by cartoons, then you can make that comparison. But I'm not holding my breath.

[Rapscallion]

Quid Pro Quo then...so it's ok to hate from an athiest's standpoint? O_o

I don't see anything to do with hate to make it exclusive to one group or another.

Atheists will generally have reasons to hate other than "It says I must in this bronze age tribal history!"

Rapscallion