patrick.net

gromitmpl says

Slow down hoss. You are really rewriting history there. What a load of crock. I don't know what history books you are reading but the democratic party and liberalism in particular is the ideological forfather of most of those ills you mention. Yes - the deep democratic south of old. You need to speak to the former democrat Senator, grand KKK dragon wizard, Robert Bird.

1. Everything I said in the list above is factually accurate. I never rewrite history. In fact, that's what I find so repugnant about Wikipedia.

2. I listed the beliefs of "social conservatives", not Democrats or Republicans. And yes, that is what social conservatives have believed in during the past 200+ years.

3. True, the Democratic Party used to be the party of social conservatives and the Republican Party used to be the party of social liberals. But that all changed in the 1960s with LBJ, Nixon, and Goldwater. Today, the opposite is true.

4. Yes, the Democrats used to be evil when they were made up of social conservatives. Strom Thurmond, that evil bigot who filibustered the Civil Rights Act in the 1950s, was a Democrat when he did so. He became a Republican when LBJ saw that racism was a dead end politically and started passing civil rights legislation. At that time, all the social conservatives fled the Democratic Party and enter the Republican ranks. The two parties switched roles and have remained that way since.

gromitmpl says

I would say nice try but your so far off base in lala land that its not even a good attempt at tracing the lineage of conservatism.

Social conservatism has its roots in slavery and religious intolerance. It has always been xenophobic and that is it's defining characteristic. It is tribal.

Other types of conservatism are not in any way related to social conservatism. Fiscal conservatives are typically rich godless assholes who sniff cocaine off of a hooker's ass. They aren't social conservatives at all. The strange marriage between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives is simply due to the fiscal conservatives giving dumb, poor bigots a god podium in exchange for being able to siphon all the wealth in society and keeping the masses powerless.

Political conservatives, i.e. small government people, are always social liberals almost by definition. They believe in minimal government which means no anti-sex laws, no anti-gay laws, no anti-sodomy laws, no race laws, no government intrusion into the bedroom of consenting adults.

gromitmpl says

I think really your just trying to bring up the homosexual issue. Equating being black with being a homosexual. Un freaking believable!!!!!

I don't know what you mean by "equating being black with being a homosexual", but I will state unequivocally that the trials and injustices that homosexuals have had to face in this country paralleled those that African Americans have faced quite well, especially in the matters of interracial and gay marriage.

In any case, homosexuals should be equal under law to heterosexuals with absolutely no exceptions. To deny this is to disagree with the very founding principle of our country: "all men are created equal". It is Unamerican to deny the equality of homosexuals.

gromitmpl says

By the way - did you know that throughout history homosexual sex has been considered a crime by just about every civilized (and uncivilized) nation or other political entity. As a historical matter it is only the tiniest minority of people who have ever argued that sexual interaction between two people of the same sex is "OK" let alone "good".

Most civilizations in history have outlawed homosexuality, therefore homosexuality should be outlawed. This is the logical fallacy known as Appeal to Common Practice.

Most civilizations in history have considered women to be the property of their husbands. Does that mean we should do so?

Most civilizations in history have allowed slavery. Does that mean we should do so?

Most civilizations in history have taxed the masses greatly. Does that mean we should do so?

Most civilizations in history have only allowed the state-sponsored religion. Does that mean we should do so?

Most civilizations in history have been polytheistic. Does that mean we should do so?

Do you see where your argument has gone astray?

Can you honestly make an argument that homosexuality should be banned or that homosexuality is harmful to society? I've certainly have shown time and again how xenophobia and the use of state force to sponsor a single religion is bad.

gromitmpl says

If you want to argue the homosexual sex is a good the burden is on you my friend.

I have never argued that homosexual sex is good, or that heterosexual sex is good, or that sex is good. Nor am I interested in arguing that. That is a subjective matter.

I have argued that the state has no business or right to interfere in the sexual or romantic relationships of consenting adults. And that argument is based on the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is also protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution which grants us freedom of religion, which includes the freedom not to have religious dogma forced upon us.

Furthermore, it is protected by the equal protection clause of the Fourteen Amendment, which prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.

Finally, I argue that no person has the right to use force, including the force of law, to in any way to force his own arbitrary opinions onto another person. The law should do one and only one thing: protect rights. Any law that does anything other than protecting rights is a bad law.

Dan8267 says

4. Yes, the Democrats used to be evil when they were made up of social conservatives. Strom Thurmond, that evil bigot who filibustered the Civil Rights Act in the 1950s, was a Democrat when he did so. He became a Republican when LBJ saw that racism was a dead end politically and started passing civil rights legislation. At that time, all the social conservatives fled the Democratic Party and enter the Republican ranks. The two parties switched roles and have remained that way since.

Twilight zone time!

This is a problem that is easy enough to solve, just make it way more difficult to get on food stamps.

gromitmpl says

Twilight zone time!

Is this your way of refuting these facts?

Dan8267 says

Is this your way of refuting these facts?

You have not said anything factual. Your tracing of the ideological ancestry of the conservative movement is totally fictional. If anything it is the ideological ancestors of present day liberals who were the slave traders, the segregationists and all the rest.

Conservatives believe in those natural law principles that are the foundation of our country. These principles are enunciated in the Declaration of Independence
, and are rooted in nature. For instance it is a conservative principle that all men are created equal. Im not exactly sure how that squares with your misunderstanding of "social conservatives". Really I think you are just equivocating.

gromitmpl says

Conservatives believe in those natural law principles that are the foundation of our country.

Another poster termed them "regressives". I agree, "conservative" is a very poor label as they are "conservative" of historic practice only very selectively. They believe in strict interpretation of Constitution and Founders circa 1780's, oh except when it means Patriot Act and unlimited military funds, then let's forget it. This is always bizarre to me, as Founders were against large standing armies. Founders were also hostile to corporations after their negative experiences with the East India Company, while modern conservatives bend themselves into pretzels to turn this place into a corporatocracy.

Enough! You no longer get to use that word.

How about I call myself a Neo-Neo-Con. I'd like to turn back the clock only to the 1990's, when the biggest kerfluffle we could muster was a semen stain on an intern's dress.

gromitmpl says

You have not said anything factual. Your tracing of the ideological ancestry of the conservative movement is totally fictional. If anything it is the ideological ancestors of present day liberals who were the slave traders, the segregationists and all the rest.

So let me get this straight. You are arguing that the North was responsible for slavery, not the South.

Do I even need to respond?