What did you used to be?

[Federal Farmer]

I've always been "conservative", in the Constitutional sense, and supported the most "conservative" candidate regardless of their political affiliation, which in Presidential elections has meant GOP since the DNC candidates have either not bothered to read the document, or were so befuddled by it's content that they simply ignore it.

At the local and state level, I've voted for nearly as many "democrats" as I have "republicans", because of their records and/or their stances on the issues, but never because of their party affiliation.

As it applies to the upcoming election, I have no choice but to vote for McCain, regardless of my objections to him, because the alternative is a politically inexperienced, died in the wool Marxist/Leninist, who would use his Presidential authority to further weaken our nation.

 

[Libsmasher]

a modern day liberal, who never allowed Ronald Reagan, or others to reframe who I am, what I stand for, and to question my patriotism without a fight.

Now if only you can get your fellow libs to stop the reframing of the other side. Eg, non-libs are either "neocons", or the farrrrrrr ultra uber way way out there right wing.

 

[foggedinn]

Used to be a Methodist. Read the Old Testament when I was 8. The Word established my faith, the church exposed me to it.

Left the church for 40 years. God brought me back 3 years ago last April. Currently a member of the Baptist church. Not for doctrinal reasons, it just happens to be the closest mainstream protestant church.

Since reading the OT at 8, I've always believed that God's Word is the Law. Very hardcore about this. I actually consider calling any product of man the Law as an act of Idolatry.

The notion of separation of church and state is contra-biblical. Jesus as priest in the order of Melchizedic was head of the church. As Son of David, he was heriditary king of Israel. Biblicaly, there is a unity of church and state, not separation.

The last republican I voted for was Nixon in 72. I considered Watergate a political vendetta at the time and still do today. Virtually identical in form to the Lewinski brohaha the republicans did to Clinton.

Given the choices the two parties have given us in 08, God must be very angry with America. I will probably vote for McCain.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Hmm, if we're talking about religion...

Raised a Christian by my lunatic father, got out of that nightmare as fast as I could and with my sanity more or less intact. Now an atheist, who is truly frightened by Bible-thumpers.

My wife was raised by her father (who is not at all religious), now a devout Wiccan.

 

[all_arm]

1. Liberal in high school, because what I knew came from the lib media.

i have to say i'm not sure where the liberal media myth originated. as a liberal, and knowing lots of other liberals, we all think the media is doing a piss-poor job.

for the most part, big media is about MONEY, not ideology. CORPORATIONS control the media, not liberals.

Liberal until about 20 because i thought the world revolved around me, then I grew up and realized that there were other things more important than me so I became conservative.

MAJOR LOLZ.

please tell me how liberalism is more focused on the exclusionary promotion of the individual than conservatism.

liberalism: let's help everyone (through education, social welfare, etc.)

conservatism: i'm looking out for ME (anti-federally funded education and social welfare, believe the market and one's abilities working within that system should be the basis for not only success, but also acquisition of necessities)

whether or not you AGREE with liberal policies is not the issue, i know full well that you don't. but by all means explain to me how american liberal policy positions are more self-centered than american conservative positions.

for that matter, if we want to expand the discussion, how about socialism vs. capitalism? capitalism is ALL about the individual, even at the expense of the greater social good, whereas socialism is ALL about the greater social good, even at the expense of the individual. please leave any ignorant neocon anti-communist babbling out of your response and just focus on the role of the individual vs. society at large.

you are all cockeyed on this one, i think.

as for me, always been a liberal, will always be a liberal. also, born to vaguely deistic parents, but i've been an atheist since i was old enough to decide for myself, and unless god comes down and talks to me, i always will be.

 

[all_arm]

Now if only you can get your fellow libs to stop the reframing of the other side. Eg, non-libs are either "neocons", or the farrrrrrr ultra uber way way out there right wing.

you don't seem to know what "neoconservative" means. the vast majority of today's republican party can most accurately be described with that word.

 

[Federal Farmer]

you don't seem to know what "neoconservative" means. the vast majority of today's republican party can most accurately be described with that word.

Actually, the word "neo-con" refers to, literally, "New Conservative", and is generally descriptive of former Liberals who have come to the Conservative side of the isle. The number of "neo-cons" is quite small in the Republican Party, making up less than 20% of the total number. The vast majority of Republicans are, and always have been "conservative" to one extent or another, whether it be the more Libertarian leaning all the way to the hard line conservatives.

 

[all_arm]

Actually, the word "neo-con" refers to, literally, "New Conservative", and is generally descriptive of former Liberals who have come to the Conservative side of the isle. The number of "neo-cons" is quite small in the Republican Party, making up less than 20% of the total number. The vast majority of Republicans are, and always have been "conservative" to one extent or another, whether it be the more Libertarian leaning all the way to the hard line conservatives.

nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative

neoconservative refers to the rejection of "classical conservative" ideals (what americans now call "libertarianism") in favor of big military and more authoritarian social policies. it has nothing to do with how long they've been conservative, but with their specific brand of conservative ideology.

the term you're thinking of is "neoliberal," which (in the conventional american usage) is the rejection of both "classical liberalism" as well as socialism and social democracy, in favor of an overall right/centrist viewpoint in economic and foreign affairs, and a left/centrist position on domestic issues and civil liberties.

 

[Federal Farmer]

nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative

neoconservative refers to the rejection of "classical conservative" ideals (what americans now call "libertarianism") in favor of big military and more authoritarian social policies. it has nothing to do with how long they've been conservative, but with their specific brand of conservative ideology.

the term you're thinking of is "neoliberal," which (in the conventional american usage) is the rejection of both "classical liberalism" as well as socialism and social democracy, in favor of an overall right/centrist viewpoint in economic and foreign affairs, and a left/centrist position on domestic issues and civil liberties.

Young one, I realize that in your very short 21 years on this earth that you have come like to think that you know something, especially with your skull full of mush being scrambled by all of your liberal Professors, but let an old man, with grandchildren approaching your age, give you a little pointer; If you're going to cite something as a point of disagreement, you might want to read enough of it to make sure that it doesn't contradict the point you're trying to make as it only serves to make you look even more foolish than you already do. Also, while Wiki is a fairly good starting point for research, don't fall into the trap of believing everything that's been posted there, especially since it is "user edited", and anyone with an agenda can post anything they want to, regardless of the validity of their postings.

Remember the maxim "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

From your source;

Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States from the rejection of the social liberalism, moral relativism, and New Left counterculture of the 1960s. ...

Ergo, Liberals leaving the liberal party for the conservative party

The term neoconservative was originally used as a criticism against liberals who had "moved to the right".[3][4] Michael Harrington, a democratic socialist, coined the usage of neoconservative in a 1973 Dissent magazine article concerning welfare policy.[5] According to E. J. Dionne, the nascent neoconservatives were driven by "the notion that liberalism" had failed and "no longer knew what it was talking about."[1]

Again, Liberals leaving their party for the conservative party.

Neo-conservative means "new conservative", because the word "neo" is a prefix that literally means "new". If I were talking about "neo liberals", I would have been talking about people who had left conservatism for liberalism, which would be indicative of the individuals in question having undergone a Frontal Lobotomy.

 

[SusanConstant]

I have always been wholly for the Declaration and Constitution. No political party perserves, protects and defends either. All political parties that I know of violate the law in some way...I went through a list once and the closest party I identified with was some guy who had nothng to say except something like "love your brother. I have no intention of ever campaigning for any office and this party is about peace, love and the golden rule. I'm the only member of this party as I stopped seeking members. If you like peace, love and brotherhood, then you may call yourself a member of this party. I am selling a cd of some music as I use the proceeds to maintain this website and to pay fees." That was it. He had a picture of a rainbow or something flashing in the background.

This appeals to me as it is very American no matter how unrealistic it is. But, I wouldn't call myself a member of this party. As for what am I as in liberal, etc.? An originalist, a centrist and a Deist (who knows miracles are real as it is physics and who knows as fact the God intervenes in Earthly events at times; I had to revise those two Deist mistaken beliefs but can still call myself a Deist as not all philosophy is law and so may be subject to revision). I have no extreme views and most likely will never belong to any party as all of my beliefs are reasoned and supported with evidence rising to proof. By their very nature political parties have no reason but only excuse.

Besides: no election involving my person is valid due to my direct federal challenge which overtured Bush v Gore. If I vote in any election I lose my federal standing as then I am giving consent - authoirty and power - to these people. My vote was illegally denied me in 2000 & 2004 and the federal court refuses to addres it so unless I choose to give away my legal power and moral authority Marbury says I must not vote. My vote has no actual legal power as I am a woman but it has zero protection of the law as I am Susan, a true, absolute class of one. I'm already on my way back into the Supreme Court but even if the legal power of my vote was secured tomorrow I'd still refuse to join a party. Oh -by centrst? I have views people can't stand but I in no way act spinelessy or kiss ass. To me centrist means: The truth of what our law says and how it is to be applied equally to all.

 

[GraceAustin]

What did you used to be?>>>

Ignorant. I viewed life in black or white, without appreciating the shades of grey that could impact my opinions. It was, after all, more important to be 'right' than to be correct in my assumptions.

 

[Libsmasher]

i have to say i'm not sure where the liberal media myth originated. as a liberal, and knowing lots of other liberals, we all think the media is doing a piss-poor job.

for the most part, big media is about MONEY, not ideology. CORPORATIONS control the media, not liberals.

Do I have to spend ALL my time tutoring people here?? Corporations have become the lap-kitties of the left:

- they've implemented the left's policies of anti-white racism in the workplace
- they've suppressed religious connected things like christmas parties
- they pander to minorities anti-white racism with ads, TV, and movies ridiculing white males
- they give shacked up gays company benefits for their partner, but not for heterosexual employees
- they give money to the big liberal-left foundations
- they acquiesce to shakedowns by minority "leaders" like Jesse Jackson
- they support and make money from the illegal alien invasion
- they brag about their contributions for research for diseases of the democrat parties client groups (breast cancer and AIDS) while other wide spread disease research efforts are starved for funds.


etc etc --- GET A CLUE

 

[Libsmasher]

you don't seem to know what "neoconservative" means. the vast majority of today's republican party can most accurately be described with that word.

That is patently absurd - the term arose within the conservative movement to describe a group of disaffected liberals. They were lead by mostly ex-liberal jewish intellectuals such as Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol, who tired of the drift of the democrat party's traditional opposition to communism as exemplified by such as Truman and JFK, to a leftwing view, and later a blatant anti-israeli view, and finally an islamofascist apologist view. Since such individuals supported the iraq war, the gene-missing appeaser blogosphere picked up the term, previously used only by intellectuals, and turned it (ridiculously) into an all-purpoe invective to denote ANY persons who supported the iraq war.

The current meaninglessness of the term, from wiki:

Some of those identified as neoconservative reject the term, arguing that it lacks a coherent definition, or that it was coherent only in the context of the Cold War.

Conservative writer David Horowitz argues that the increasing use of the term neoconservative since the 2003 start of the Iraq War has made it irrelevant:[citation needed]

Neo-conservatism is a term almost exclusively used by the enemies of America's liberation of Iraq. There is no 'neo-conservative' movement in the United States. When there was one, it was made up of former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but supported Ronald Reagan's Cold War policies against the Soviet bloc. Today 'neo-conservatism' identifies those who believe in an aggressive policy against radical Islam and the global terrorists.

The term may have lost meaning due to excessive and inconsistent use. For example, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have been identified as leading neoconservatives despite the fact that they have been life-long conservative Republicans (though Cheney has supported Irving Kristol's ideas).

Some critics reject the idea that there is a neoconservative movement separate from traditional American conservatism. Traditional conservatives are skeptical of the contemporary usage of the term and dislike being associated with its stereotypes or supposed agendas. Columnist David Harsanyi wrote, "These days, it seems that even temperate support for military action against dictators and terrorists qualifies you a neocon."[39] Jonah Goldberg rejected the label as trite and over-used, arguing "There's nothing 'neo' about me: I was never anything other than conservative."

 

[palerider]

please tell me how liberalism is more focused on the exclusionary promotion of the individual than conservatism.

Interesting that you would ask such a question. Even more interesting that you don't seem to know the answer. I will be happy to answer, but let me ask a question first.

Which is more important to you liberty or equality?

 

[all_arm]

Interesting that you would ask such a question. Even more interesting that you don't seem to know the answer. I will be happy to answer, but let me ask a question first.

Which is more important to you liberty or equality?

is this a a silly hypothetical where the two are made out to be mutually exclusive? you'll have to elaborate; exactly which liberties would be lost in the search for equality? what inequality would be present in a state of maximum liberty? i can't give you a good answer, because you're clearly setting me up for a gotcha moment, where you project your ideals onto me to make me look bad.


as for "neoconservative," it doesn't matter what it used to mean- lots of words used to have different meanings than they do now.

fed- you posted it- rejection of social liberalism despite a desire for bigger government, distaste for the 60's counterculture- that IS today's republican party. the small-government party that coined the term forty years ago no longer exists, having been taken over by that faction.

the bashing of wikipedia is funny... you realize that YOU, or anyone else, is free to change anything you know to be wrong? and as long as you're supported by facts, the page will remain as you left it? yes, wiki is a bad place for serious research, because its writers often lack the specific knowledge necessary for that type of writing, but the notion that because it's user edited, it's inherently inaccurate, is so 2002.