Current Events > Why aren't more true conservatives upset their party was hijacked by radicals?

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3
ellis123 10/30/23 2:05:26 PM #51:	TheOtherMike posted... Conservatives are inherently radicals. Conservatives are inherently anti-radical. --- "A shouted order to do something of dubious morality with an unpredictable outcome? Thweeet!" My FC is in my profile. <cite>ellis123 posted [p:976940155] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>TheOtherMike posted... </cite><quote>Conservatives are inherently radicals.</quote>Conservatives are inherently anti-radical. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Enclave 10/30/23 2:07:08 PM #52:	ellis123 posted... Conservatives are inherently anti-radical. That's complete nonsense. --- The commercial says that Church isn't for perfect people, I guess that's why I'm an atheist. <cite>Enclave posted [p:976940172] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>ellis123 posted... </cite><quote>Conservatives are inherently anti-radical.</quote>That's complete nonsense. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Ruvan22 10/30/23 2:08:48 PM #53:	Kolibri_X posted... What radicals? Nothing about the GOP is radical. Proclaiming themselves Domestic Terrorists isn't radical? <cite>Ruvan22 posted [p:976940199] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>Kolibri_X posted... </cite><quote>What radicals? Nothing about the GOP is radical.</quote>Proclaiming themselves Domestic Terrorists isn't radical?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Heineken14 10/30/23 2:28:09 PM #54:	Kolibri_X posted... What radicals? Nothing about the GOP is radical. You don't think trying to overthrow a fair election is radical? --- Rage is a hell of an anesthetic. <cite>Heineken14 posted [p:976940502] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>Kolibri_X posted...</cite><quote>What radicals? Nothing about the GOP is radical.</quote>You don't think trying to overthrow a fair election is radical? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheOtherMike 10/30/23 2:30:44 PM #55:	ellis123 posted... Conservatives are inherently anti-radical. Lol and, indeed Lmao --- Only two things can end a Republican's career - a dead girl or a live boy. <cite>TheOtherMike posted [p:976940550] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>ellis123 posted... </cite><quote>Conservatives are inherently anti-radical.</quote>Loland, indeedLmao </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#56	Post #56 was unavailable or deleted.
Antiyonder 10/30/23 2:35:19 PM #57:	So when it comes to people complaining about how Freedom of Speech requires responsibility, is the "Shouting fire in a theater" really a strawman or no? --- Amalgam Universe resident Born in 82. <cite>Antiyonder posted [p:976940643] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>So when it comes to people complaining about how Freedom of Speech requires responsibility, is the "Shouting fire in a theater" really a strawman or no? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ellis123 10/30/23 2:40:39 PM #58:	Enclave posted... That's complete nonsense. Conservatives inherently wish for the status quo to be unchanged. Thus they are against anything that be considered radical. --- "A shouted order to do something of dubious morality with an unpredictable outcome? Thweeet!" My FC is in my profile. <cite>ellis123 posted [p:976940729] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>Enclave posted... </cite><quote>That's complete nonsense.</quote>Conservatives inherently wish for the status quo to be unchanged. Thus they are against anything that be considered radical. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChainsawFerret 10/30/23 2:43:40 PM #59:	ellis123 posted... Conservatives are inherently anti-radical. Well, they aren't the ones who are waving around AR-15s....oh, wait. They didn't try to overthrow a lawful election-Oh, wait. They aren't trying to strip away basic civil rights and turn us into a theocracy-Oh, wait. So what's that, they ARE radical? And the proof is in their actions? Yeah, you need to pay more attention to what's happening around you. All those things the Taliban are doing? They want to do those things, but with a different religion as their justification. --- Fact: Ferrets attack more people than grizzly bears. " "Stop putting up with nonsense, or you'll keep getting atrocities." -Me <cite>ChainsawFerret posted [p:976940792] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>ellis123 posted... </cite><quote>Conservatives are inherently anti-radical.</quote>Well, they aren't the ones who are waving around AR-15s....oh, wait. They didn't try to overthrow a lawful election-Oh, wait. They aren't trying to strip away basic civil rights and turn us into a theocracy-Oh, wait.So what's that, they ARE radical? And the proof is in their actions? Yeah, you need to pay more attention to what's happening around you. All those things the Taliban are doing? They want to do those things, but with a different religion as their justification. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#60	Post #60 was unavailable or deleted.
legendary_zell 10/30/23 2:54:32 PM #61:	ellis123 posted... Conservatives inherently wish for the status quo to be unchanged. Thus they are against anything that be considered radical. This is not a workable definition of radical or conservative. Radical can mean either extreme or extreme and leftwing, but the core meaning common to both is extreme. Sometimes, the status quo can be radical (meaning extreme). For example, in the antebellum South, the US had one of the worst forms of widespread, racialized chattel slavery in human history. That was a radical form of organizing society. Maintaining that was radical. Starting a Civil War to maintain that system was radical. Yet conservatives were the ones who did that. Later, Gilded Age capitalism was the status quo. The government was bombing workers for trying to go on strike, there was a huge gap between rich and poor, the working class was almost powerless. That was a radical state of society, and conservatives supported it. Now, you have conservatives supporting criminalizing abortion, removing accurate history and scientific education from schools, more police power, no worker protections, more concentration of wealth and political power in the hands of the wealthy, restriction of voting rights, moving towards white Christian nationalist rhetoric and policy, and offering support to anti-democratic movements and politicians. That's radical, conservatives support it. --- I gotta be righteous, I gotta be me, I gotta be conscious, I gotta be free, I gotta be able, I gotta attack, I gotta be stable, I gotta be black. <cite>legendary_zell posted [p:976940978] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>ellis123 posted... </cite><quote>Conservatives inherently wish for the status quo to be unchanged. Thus they are against anything that be considered radical.</quote>This is not a workable definition of radical or conservative. Radical can mean either extreme or extreme and leftwing, but the core meaning common to both is extreme. Sometimes, the status quo can be radical (meaning extreme). For example, in the antebellum South, the US had one of the worst forms of widespread, racialized chattel slavery in human history. That was a radical form of organizing society. Maintaining that was radical. Starting a Civil War to maintain that system was radical. Yet conservatives were the ones who did that. Later, Gilded Age capitalism was the status quo. The government was bombing workers for trying to go on strike, there was a huge gap between rich and poor, the working class was almost powerless. That was a radical state of society, and conservatives supported it. Now, you have conservatives supporting criminalizing abortion, removing accurate history and scientific education from schools, more police power, no worker protections, more concentration of wealth and political power in the hands of the wealthy, restriction of voting rights, moving towards white Christian nationalist rhetoric and policy, and offering support to anti-democratic movements and politicians. That's radical, conservatives support it. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#62	Post #62 was unavailable or deleted.
nocturnal_traveler 10/30/23 3:10:51 PM #63:	Like other's said, this was always the Republican way. The old GOP were just smart enough to hide it. The new GOP says it our loud. --- --I understand your opinion. I just don't care about it. ~Jedah-- <cite>nocturnal_traveler posted [p:976941234] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>Like other's said, this was always the Republican way. The old GOP were just smart enough to hide it. The new GOP says it our loud. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tyranthraxus 10/30/23 3:16:24 PM #64:	ellis123 posted... Conservatives inherently wish for the status quo to be unchanged. Thus they are against anything that be considered radical. They want the status quo to be unchanged so hard they spent nearly 40 years upending the status quo on RvW --- It says right here in Matthew 16:4 "Jesus doth not need a giant Mecha." https://i.imgur.com/dQgC4kv.jpg <cite>Tyranthraxus posted [p:976941343] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>ellis123 posted... </cite><quote>Conservatives inherently wish for the status quo to be unchanged. Thus they are against anything that be considered radical.</quote>They want the status quo to be unchanged so hard they spent nearly 40 years upending the status quo on RvW </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#65	Post #65 was unavailable or deleted.
Enclave 10/30/23 3:20:36 PM #66:	ellis123 posted... Conservatives inherently wish for the status quo to be unchanged. Thus they are against anything that be considered radical. No they don't, they want the status quo to be rolled back not remain as it currently is. --- The commercial says that Church isn't for perfect people, I guess that's why I'm an atheist. <cite>Enclave posted [p:976941409] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>ellis123 posted... </cite><quote>Conservatives inherently wish for the status quo to be unchanged. Thus they are against anything that be considered radical.</quote>No they don't, they want the status quo to be rolled back not remain as it currently is. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ellis123 10/30/23 3:23:03 PM #67:	ChainsawFerret posted... Well, they aren't the ones who are waving around AR-15s....oh, wait. They didn't try to overthrow a lawful election-Oh, wait. They aren't trying to strip away basic civil rights and turn us into a theocracy-Oh, wait. So what's that, they ARE radical? And the proof is in their actions? Yeah, you need to pay more attention to what's happening around you. All those things the Taliban are doing? They want to do those things, but with a different religion as their justification. Yet all of the things you just said were in service of not changing the status quo. Just because something is extremist doesn't make it radicalist. Radicalism when applied to politics is about the transformation or replacement of fundamental aspect of the government. Someone running around with an AR-15 trying to stop people from voting isn't ka change from the status quo: it is literally the opposite in that they are actively trying to keep the old one at gun point. So yeah, modern conservatism isn't highly extremist-focused, but not really radicalist. legendary_zell posted... This is not a workable definition of radical or conservative. Radical can mean either extreme or extreme and leftwing, but the core meaning common to both is extreme. Sometimes, the status quo can be radical (meaning extreme). For example, in the antebellum South, the US had one of the worst forms of widespread, racialized chattel slavery in human history. That was a radical form of organizing society. Maintaining that was radical. Starting a Civil War to maintain that system was radical. Yet conservatives were the ones who did that. Later, Gilded Age capitalism was the status quo. The government was bombing workers for trying to go on strike, there was a huge gap between rich and poor, the working class was almost powerless. That was a radical state of society, and conservatives supported it. Now, you have conservatives supporting criminalizing abortion, removing accurate history and scientific education from schools, more police power, no worker protections, more concentration of wealth and political power in the hands of the wealthy, restriction of voting rights, moving towards white Christian nationalist rhetoric and policy, and offering support to anti-democratic movements and politicians. That's radical, conservatives support it. That describes extremism, not radicalsim. Radical politics can involve extremism, but it is not exclusively about that. Instead it is based around the concept of the change in society. Thus you can take your point of the Civil War and see it entirely as the conservatives having a war exclusively to combat the projected change in the status quo. So just like with Chainsaw it can always be pointed out that at no point in time will the conservative ever be the one actually calling for a change in the status quo. Conservatives want to criminalize abortion? That isn't a change to the status quo, women are already lower on the power totem pole. No worker protections? Not. A. Change. Basically it's a simple confusion with the concept of the radicalist and the extremist. Conservatives actively fight against any change to the status quo, hence why most people recognize conservatism through neo-liberalism now rather than monarchism, and thus by default they really aren't going to ever be radical when it comes to politics. On the flip side extremism can come from either side just fine as it is not about the content being fought for so much as the way that the fighting is happing. Thus in your examples you have brought up plenty of extremism, but at no point is any of it actually radical. No change is happening to the status quo, with the biggest alterations being the "quiet part" being codified. Tyranthraxus posted... They want the status quo to be unchanged so hard they spent nearly 40 years upending the status quo on RvW Which part of the last 40 years have had women having the same power as men? I must have been asleep during that bit. Enclave posted... No they don't, they want the status quo to be rolled back not remain as it currently is. To what? White men having all the power? Certainly you could make the argument that some wish for a far more extreme version of what is currently in place but it's not like we don't already have easy things to point to like the wage gap to point out how that already exists just fine. --- "A shouted order to do something of dubious morality with an unpredictable outcome? Thweeet!" My FC is in my profile. <cite>ellis123 posted [p:976941454] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>ChainsawFerret posted... </cite><quote>Well, they aren't the ones who are waving around AR-15s....oh, wait.They didn't try to overthrow a lawful election-Oh, wait.They aren't trying to strip away basic civil rights and turn us into a theocracy-Oh, wait.So what's that, they ARE radical? And the proof is in their actions? Yeah, you need to pay more attention to what's happening around you. All those things the Taliban are doing? They want to do those things, but with a different religion as their justification.</quote>Yet all of the things you just said were in service of not changing the status quo. Just because something is extremist doesn't make it radicalist. Radicalism when applied to politics is about the transformation or replacement of fundamental aspect of the government. Someone running around with an AR-15 trying to stop people from voting isn't ka change from the status quo: it is literally the opposite in that they are actively trying to keep the old one at gun point.So yeah, modern conservatism isn't highly extremist-focused, but not really radicalist.legendary_zell posted... </cite><quote>This is not a workable definition of radical or conservative. Radical can mean either extreme or extreme and leftwing, but the core meaning common to both is extreme.Sometimes, the status quo can be radical (meaning extreme). For example, in the antebellum South, the US had one of the worst forms of widespread, racialized chattel slavery in human history. That was a radical form of organizing society. Maintaining that was radical. Starting a Civil War to maintain that system was radical. Yet conservatives were the ones who did that.Later, Gilded Age capitalism was the status quo. The government was bombing workers for trying to go on strike, there was a huge gap between rich and poor, the working class was almost powerless. That was a radical state of society, and conservatives supported it.Now, you have conservatives supporting criminalizing abortion, removing accurate history and scientific education from schools, more police power, no worker protections, more concentration of wealth and political power in the hands of the wealthy, restriction of voting rights, moving towards white Christian nationalist rhetoric and policy, and offering support to anti-democratic movements and politicians. That's radical, conservatives support it.</quote>That describes extremism, not radicalsim. Radical politics can involve extremism, but it is not exclusively about that. Instead it is based around the concept of the change in society. Thus you can take your point of the Civil War and see it entirely as the conservatives having a war exclusively to combat the projected change in the status quo. So just like with Chainsaw it can always be pointed out that at no point in time will the conservative ever be the one actually calling for a change in the status quo. Conservatives want to criminalize abortion? That isn't a change to the status quo, women are already lower on the power totem pole. No worker protections? Not. A. Change.Basically it's a simple confusion with the concept of the radicalist and the extremist. Conservatives actively fight against any change to the status quo, hence why most people recognize conservatism through neo-liberalism now rather than monarchism, and thus by default they really aren't going to ever be radical when it comes to politics. On the flip side extremism can come from either side just fine as it is not about the content being fought for so much as the way that the fighting is happing. Thus in your examples you have brought up plenty of extremism, but at no point is any of it actually radical. No change is happening to the status quo, with the biggest alterations being the "quiet part" being codified.Tyranthraxus posted... </cite><quote>They want the status quo to be unchanged so hard they spent nearly 40 years upending the status quo on RvW</quote>Which part of the last 40 years have had women having the same power as men? I must have been asleep during that bit.Enclave posted... </cite><quote>No they don't, they want the status quo to be rolled back not remain as it currently is.</quote>To what? White men having all the power? Certainly you could make the argument that some wish for a far more extreme version of what is currently in place but it's not like we don't already have easy things to point to like the wage gap to point out how that already exists just fine. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
creativerealms 10/30/23 3:23:45 PM #68:	Because its easier to go with the flow, and get radicalized too. --- "Intelligence has no place in Politics" Londo, (Babylon Five) Save Star trek prodigy <cite>creativerealms posted [p:976941462] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>Because its easier to go with the flow, and get radicalized too. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
legendary_zell 10/30/23 3:32:27 PM #69:	ellis123 posted... Yet all of the things you just said were in service of not changing the status quo. Just because something is extremist doesn't make it radicalist. Radicalism when applied to politics is about the transformation or replacement of fundamental aspect of the government. Someone running around with an AR-15 trying to stop people from voting isn't ka change from the status quo: it is literally the opposite in that they are actively trying to keep the old one at gun point. So yeah, modern conservatism isn't highly extremist-focused, but not really radicalist. That describes extremism, not radicalsim. Radical politics can involve extremism, but it is not exclusively about that. Instead it is based around the concept of the change in society. Thus you can take your point of the Civil War and see it entirely as the conservatives having a war exclusively to combat the projected change in the status quo. So just like with Chainsaw it can always be pointed out that at no point in time will the conservative ever be the one actually calling for a change in the status quo. Conservatives want to criminalize abortion? That isn't a change to the status quo, women are already lower on the power totem pole. No worker protections? Not. A. Change. Basically it's a simple confusion with the concept of the radicalist and the extremist. Conservatives actively fight against any change to the status quo, hence why most people recognize conservatism through neo-liberalism now rather than monarchism, and thus by default they really aren't going to ever be radical when it comes to politics. On the flip side extremism can come from either side just fine as it is not about the content being fought for so much as the way that the fighting is happing. Thus in your examples you have brought up plenty of extremism, but at no point is any of it actually radical. No change is happening to the status quo, with the biggest alterations being the "quiet part" being codified. Which part of the last 40 years have had women having the same power as men? I must have been asleep during that bit. To what? White men having all the power? Certainly you could make the argument that some wish for a far more extreme version of what is currently in place but it's not like we don't already have easy things to point to like the wage gap to point out how that already exists just fine. Nah, I'm literally referencing the dictionary definition of radical. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/radical a : very different from the usual or traditional : EXTREME (emphasis added by me) b : favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions (emphasis added by me) c : associated with political views, practices, and policies of extreme change d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affair (emphasis added by me) *the radical* right** (emphasis added by me, other than italics) --- I gotta be righteous, I gotta be me, I gotta be conscious, I gotta be free, I gotta be able, I gotta attack, I gotta be stable, I gotta be black. <cite>legendary_zell posted [p:976941612] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>ellis123 posted... </cite><quote>Yet all of the things you just said were in service of not changing the status quo. Just because something is extremist doesn't make it radicalist. Radicalism when applied to politics is about the transformation or replacement of fundamental aspect of the government. Someone running around with an AR-15 trying to stop people from voting isn't ka change from the status quo: it is literally the opposite in that they are actively trying to keep the old one at gun point.So yeah, modern conservatism isn't highly extremist-focused, but not really radicalist.That describes extremism, not radicalsim. Radical politics can involve extremism, but it is not exclusively about that. Instead it is based around the concept of the change in society. Thus you can take your point of the Civil War and see it entirely as the conservatives having a war exclusively to combat the projected change in the status quo. So just like with Chainsaw it can always be pointed out that at no point in time will the conservative ever be the one actually calling for a change in the status quo. Conservatives want to criminalize abortion? That isn't a change to the status quo, women are already lower on the power totem pole. No worker protections? Not. A. Change.Basically it's a simple confusion with the concept of the radicalist and the extremist. Conservatives actively fight against any change to the status quo, hence why most people recognize conservatism through neo-liberalism now rather than monarchism, and thus by default they really aren't going to ever be radical when it comes to politics. On the flip side extremism can come from either side just fine as it is not about the content being fought for so much as the way that the fighting is happing. Thus in your examples you have brought up plenty of extremism, but at no point is any of it actually radical. No change is happening to the status quo, with the biggest alterations being the "quiet part" being codified.Which part of the last 40 years have had women having the same power as men? I must have been asleep during that bit.To what? White men having all the power? Certainly you could make the argument that some wish for a far more extreme version of what is currently in place but it's not like we don't already have easy things to point to like the wage gap to point out how that already exists just fine.</quote>Nah, I'm literally referencing the dictionary definition of radical. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/radicala: very different from the usual or traditional : EXTREME (emphasis added by me)b: favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions (emphasis added by me)c: associated with political views, practices, and policies of extreme changed: advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affair (emphasis added by me)the radical right (emphasis added by me, other than italics) </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#70	Post #70 was unavailable or deleted.
ellis123 10/30/23 3:43:22 PM #71:	legendary_zell posted... Nah, I'm literally referencing the dictionary definition of radical. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/radical a : very different from the usual or traditional : EXTREME (emphasis added by me) b : favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions (emphasis added by me) c : associated with political views, practices, and policies of extreme change d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affair (emphasis added by me) *the radical* right (emphasis added by me, other than italics) So am I: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_politics "Radical politics** denotes the intent to transform or replace the fundamental principles of a society or political system, often through social change, structural change, revolution or radical reform." The difference is that mine is more about the traditional usage of the word rather than the extrapolations. This is in so far as I hate the idea that the word is merely a synonym to extremist. This is especially apparent when A, B, and C all are diametrically the opposite of D on Mariam Webster and largely comes across as an addition sheerly because of its common misuse (much like with something like "decimate"). It ends up conflating it and extremism as a way to make it so that "radicalist" always has a violent piece of baggage attached to it. This is something that came about with MLK (or at least that time period) and really is just a way to smear anyone who wants to make such changes to the system by the implicit connection to violent extremists. [LFAQs-redacted-quote] That's fair. --- "A shouted order to do something of dubious morality with an unpredictable outcome? Thweeet!" My FC is in my profile. <cite>ellis123 posted [p:976941802] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>legendary_zell posted... </cite><quote>Nah, I'm literally referencing the dictionary definition of radical. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/radicala: very different from the usual or traditional : EXTREME (emphasis added by me)b: favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions (emphasis added by me)c: associated with political views, practices, and policies of extreme changed: advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affair (emphasis added by me)the radical right (emphasis added by me, other than italics)</quote>So am I:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_politics"Radical politics denotes the intent to transform or replace the fundamental principles of a society or political system, often through social change, structural change, revolution or radical reform."The difference is that mine is more about the traditional usage of the word rather than the extrapolations. This is in so far as I hate the idea that the word is merely a synonym to extremist. This is especially apparent when A, B, and C all are diametrically the opposite of D on Mariam Webster and largely comes across as an addition sheerly because of its common misuse (much like with something like "decimate"). It ends up conflating it and extremism as a way to make it so that "radicalist" always has a violent piece of baggage attached to it. This is something that came about with MLK (or at least that time period) and really is just a way to smear anyone who wants to make such changes to the system by the implicit connection to violent extremists.<cite>[LFAQs-redacted-quote]</cite> That's fair. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Inohira 10/30/23 3:56:33 PM #72:	Does it actually matter whether a party is radical or not? The Democratic party isn't radical, but right-wing propaganda treats them like they are anyway. Centrists/moderates/independents aren't radical, but partisan Democrats bitch at them like they are anyway. Doesn't really seem like it makes a difference at this point. And therefore you might as well be radical, since that's the fastest way to spread your message and force policy changes. --- 1 line break(s), 121 characters allowed <cite>Inohira posted [p:976942029] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>Does it actually matter whether a party is radical or not?The Democratic party isn't radical, but right-wing propaganda treats them like they are anyway.Centrists/moderates/independents aren't radical, but partisan Democrats bitch at them like they are anyway.Doesn't really seem like it makes a difference at this point. And therefore you might as well be radical, since that's the fastest way to spread your message and force policy changes. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Torgo 10/30/23 4:16:10 PM #73:	radical may be the wrong word here: fascist authoritarian theocratic ...are better words --- Moderated for telling people not to commit illegal acts of assault and murder.09/2/23 Also moderated for not responding to obvious bait. - 10/03/23 <cite>Torgo posted [p:976942409] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>radical may be the wrong word here:fascistauthoritariantheocratic...are better words </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smackems 10/30/23 4:30:49 PM #74:	[LFAQs-redacted-quote] Iunno I was jus talking out my ass --- Common sense says it may not taste good, but it'll make a turd. <cite>Smackems posted [p:976942663] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote><cite>[LFAQs-redacted-quote]</cite> Iunno I was jus talking out my ass </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#75	Post #75 was unavailable or deleted.
#76	Post #76 was unavailable or deleted.
#77	Post #77 was unavailable or deleted.
Ruvan22 10/30/23 6:06:29 PM #78:	ellis123 posted... Which part of the last 40 years have had women having the same power as men? I must have been asleep during that bit. How does women having less power change the fact that Roe vs Wade WAS the status quo for 40 years? <cite>Ruvan22 posted [p:976944091] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>ellis123 posted... </cite><quote>Which part of the last 40 years have had women having the same power as men? I must have been asleep during that bit.</quote>How does women having less power change the fact that Roe vs Wade WAS the status quo for 40 years?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DrizztLink 10/30/23 6:37:06 PM #79:	Enclave posted... That's complete nonsense. It's true if we use the Bill & Ted definition. --- He/Him http://guidesmedia.ign.com/guides/9846/images/slowpoke.gif https://i.imgur.com/M8h2ATe.png https://i.imgur.com/6ezFwG1.png <cite>DrizztLink posted [p:976944574] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>Enclave posted... </cite><quote>That's complete nonsense.</quote>It's true if we use the Bill & Ted definition. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 10/30/23 6:39:50 PM #80:	Conservatives are in favor of hierarchies, not the status quo. --- Please don't be weird in my topics <cite>Antifar posted [p:976944626] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>Conservatives are in favor of hierarchies, not the status quo. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nocturnal_traveler 10/30/23 6:56:16 PM #81:	Ruvan22 posted... How does women having less power change the fact that Roe vs Wade WAS the status quo for 40 years? Roe v Wade wasn't the status quo. It was changed by liberals. Conservatives have been fighting to get it back "the way it was" for all these years. --- --I understand your opinion. I just don't care about it. ~Jedah-- <cite>nocturnal_traveler posted [p:976944910] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>Ruvan22 posted... </cite><quote>How does women having less power change the fact that Roe vs Wade WAS the status quo for 40 years?</quote>Roe v Wade wasn't the status quo. It was changed by liberals. Conservatives have been fighting to get it back "the way it was" for all these years. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nocturnal_traveler 10/30/23 6:57:03 PM #82:	Antifar posted... Conservatives are in favor of hierarchies, not the status quo. Also this. Democrats are in favor of the status quo. But unlike Republicans, it can be subject to change. --- --I understand your opinion. I just don't care about it. ~Jedah-- <cite>nocturnal_traveler posted [p:976944931] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>Antifar posted... </cite><quote>Conservatives are in favor of hierarchies, not the status quo.</quote>Also this. Democrats are in favor of the status quo. But unlike Republicans, it can be subject to change. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 10/30/23 6:57:58 PM #83:	nocturnal_traveler posted... the way it was" The term you're looking for is status quo ante. A different thing! --- Please don't be weird in my topics <cite>Antifar posted [p:976944949] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>nocturnal_traveler posted... </cite><quote>the way it was"</quote>The term you're looking for is status quo ante. A different thing! </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nocturnal_traveler 10/30/23 6:59:29 PM #84:	Antifar posted... The term you're looking for is status quo ante. A different thing! Ah, thanks. --- --I understand your opinion. I just don't care about it. ~Jedah-- <cite>nocturnal_traveler posted [p:976944977] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>Antifar posted... </cite><quote>The term you're looking for is status quo ante. A different thing!</quote>Ah, thanks. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Enclave 10/30/23 6:59:43 PM #85:	ellis123 posted... To what? White men having all the power? Literally yes, have you been just ignoring the conservatives for the last 50 years? --- The commercial says that Church isn't for perfect people, I guess that's why I'm an atheist. <cite>Enclave posted [p:976944981] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>ellis123 posted... </cite><quote>To what? White men having all the power?</quote>Literally yes, have you been just ignoring the conservatives for the last 50 years? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smackems 10/30/23 7:01:34 PM #86:	Antifar posted... Conservatives are in favor of hierarchies, not the status quo. That's what that lobster guy said --- Common sense says it may not taste good, but it'll make a turd. <cite>Smackems posted [p:976945018] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>Antifar posted... </cite><quote>Conservatives are in favor of hierarchies, not the status quo.</quote>That's what that lobster guy said </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Ruvan22 10/30/23 9:15:17 PM #87:	nocturnal_traveler posted... Roe v Wade wasn't the status quo. It was changed by liberals. Conservatives have been fighting to get it back "the way it was" for all these years. 40 years isn't the new status quo? <cite>Ruvan22 posted [p:976947304] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>nocturnal_traveler posted... </cite><quote>Roe v Wade wasn't the status quo. It was changed by liberals. Conservatives have been fighting to get it back "the way it was" for all these years.</quote>40 years isn't the new status quo?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ellis123 10/30/23 9:16:38 PM #88:	Enclave posted... Literally yes, have you been just ignoring the conservatives for the last 50 years? In the last 50 years rich white men have had all the power, so that would not be a change. Almost like that was my point. --- "A shouted order to do something of dubious morality with an unpredictable outcome? Thweeet!" My FC is in my profile. <cite>ellis123 posted [p:976947327] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>Enclave posted... </cite><quote>Literally yes, have you been just ignoring the conservatives for the last 50 years?</quote>In the last 50 years rich white men have had all the power, so that would not be a change.Almost like that was my point. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarthAragorn 10/30/23 9:18:11 PM #89:	nocturnal_traveler posted... Roe v Wade wasn't the status quo. It was changed by liberals. Conservatives have been fighting to get it back "the way it was" for all these years. do you think slavery is still the status quo I mean I know conservatives wish it was legal again but that's besides the point --- Asus ROG Strix Z790-E \| Core i9-13900k \| 64GB DDR5-6000 \| RTX 4090 24GB Dell AW3423DW QD-OLED - 1440p Ultrawide, 175hz, GSync <cite>DarthAragorn posted [p:976947355] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>nocturnal_traveler posted... </cite><quote>Roe v Wade wasn't the status quo. It was changed by liberals. Conservatives have been fighting to get it back "the way it was" for all these years.</quote>do you think slavery is still the status quoI mean I know conservatives wish it was legal again but that's besides the point </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nocturnal_traveler 10/30/23 9:23:48 PM #90:	Ruvan22 posted... 40 years isn't the new status quo? Not to conservatives. DarthAragorn posted... do you think slavery is still the status quo I mean I know conservatives wish it was legal again but that's besides the point You're right. They've been fighting for the return of that as well. --- --I understand your opinion. I just don't care about it. ~Jedah-- <cite>nocturnal_traveler posted [p:976947463] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>Ruvan22 posted... </cite><quote>40 years isn't the new status quo?</quote>Not to conservatives.DarthAragorn posted... </cite><quote>do you think slavery is still the status quoI mean I know conservatives wish it was legal again but that's besides the point</quote>You're right. They've been fighting for the return of that as well. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Torgo 10/30/23 9:24:43 PM #91:	Antifar posted... Conservatives are in favor of hierarchies, not the status quo. Well said. Yes. You can see that being used in some of the more ridiculous paranoid fantasies they have where they believe as soon as the American population becomes less than 50% - all the minorities will gang up and treat white people how the worst systemic hierarchies treated black people for centuries. Part of that belief is also connected to a racial-ized mythology about "the west" and that humans are sorted perfectly by meritocracy unless the natural order of society is disrupted by "nanny state" well-intentioned but misguided liberals. --- Moderated for telling people not to commit illegal acts of assault and murder.09/2/23 Also moderated for not responding to obvious bait. - 10/03/23 <cite>Torgo posted [p:976947484] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>Antifar posted... </cite><quote>Conservatives are in favor of hierarchies, not the status quo.</quote>Well said. Yes.You can see that being used in some of the more ridiculous paranoid fantasies they have where they believe as soon as the American population becomes less than 50% - all the minorities will gang up and treat white people how the worst systemic hierarchies treated black people for centuries. Part of that belief is also connected to a racial-ized mythology about "the west" and that humans are sorted perfectly by meritocracy unless the natural order of society is disrupted by "nanny state" well-intentioned but misguided liberals. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DrizztLink 10/30/23 9:24:50 PM #92:	nocturnal_traveler posted... Not to conservatives. You're right. They've been fighting for the return of that as well. What point are you making? --- He/Him http://guidesmedia.ign.com/guides/9846/images/slowpoke.gif https://i.imgur.com/M8h2ATe.png https://i.imgur.com/6ezFwG1.png <cite>DrizztLink posted [p:976947486] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>nocturnal_traveler posted... </cite><quote>Not to conservatives.You're right. They've been fighting for the return of that as well.</quote>What point are you making? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nocturnal_traveler 10/30/23 9:25:50 PM #93:	DrizztLink posted... What point are you making? That conservatives won't be satisfied until we're back to post 1776 laws. --- --I understand your opinion. I just don't care about it. ~Jedah-- <cite>nocturnal_traveler posted [p:976947504] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>DrizztLink posted... </cite><quote>What point are you making?</quote>That conservatives won't be satisfied until we're back to post 1776 laws. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Ruvan22 10/31/23 8:28:40 AM #94:	nocturnal_traveler posted... That conservatives won't be satisfied until we're back to post 1776 laws. Why that point in time? Because by your definition 1776 wasn't the 'status quo' either, plenty of things were standard practice/accepted that were different by 1776 <cite>Ruvan22 posted [p:976953624] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>nocturnal_traveler posted... </cite><quote>That conservatives won't be satisfied until we're back to post 1776 laws.</quote>Why that point in time? Because by your definition 1776 wasn't the 'status quo' either, plenty of things were standard practice/accepted that were different by 1776</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nocturnal_traveler 10/31/23 2:11:39 PM #95:	Ruvan22 posted... Why that point in time? Because by your definition 1776 wasn't the 'status quo' either, plenty of things were standard practice/accepted that were different by 1776 I say 1776 because that was after the American revolution. That was also when the second amendment was created. To them, that's the only timeline that matters. --- --I understand your opinion. I just don't care about it. ~Jedah-- <cite>nocturnal_traveler posted [p:976959070] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>Ruvan22 posted... </cite><quote>Why that point in time? Because by your definition 1776 wasn't the 'status quo' either, plenty of things were standard practice/accepted that were different by 1776</quote>I say 1776 because that was after the American revolution. That was also when the second amendment was created. To them, that's the only timeline that matters. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ellis123 10/31/23 2:37:57 PM #96:	nocturnal_traveler posted... I say 1776 because that was after the American revolution. That was also when the second amendment was created. To them, that's the only timeline that matters. Back then modern conservatism didn't exist and the second amendment was just there as a stopgap to not have a standing army. --- "A shouted order to do something of dubious morality with an unpredictable outcome? Thweeet!" My FC is in my profile. <cite>ellis123 posted [p:976959523] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>nocturnal_traveler posted... </cite><quote>I say 1776 because that was after the American revolution. That was also when the second amendment was created. To them, that's the only timeline that matters.</quote>Back then modern conservatism didn't exist and the second amendment was just there as a stopgap to not have a standing army. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnholyMudcrab 10/31/23 2:43:00 PM #97:	nocturnal_traveler posted... Roe v Wade wasn't the status quo. It was changed by liberals. Conservatives have been fighting to get it back "the way it was" for all these years. That's called reactionism. --- http://i.imgur.com/VeNBg.gif http://i.imgur.com/gd5jC8q.gif http://i.imgur.com/PKIy7.gif http://i.imgur.com/3p29JqP.gif <cite>UnholyMudcrab posted [p:976959617] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>nocturnal_traveler posted... </cite><quote>Roe v Wade wasn't the status quo. It was changed by liberals. Conservatives have been fighting to get it back "the way it was" for all these years.</quote>That's called reactionism. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nocturnal_traveler 10/31/23 2:47:14 PM #98:	ellis123 posted... Back then modern conservatism didn't exist and the second amendment was just there as a stopgap to not have a standing army. Since when have facts and logic ever got in the way of modern conservatism? --- --I understand your opinion. I just don't care about it. ~Jedah-- <cite>nocturnal_traveler posted [p:976959702] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>ellis123 posted... </cite><quote>Back then modern conservatism didn't exist and the second amendment was just there as a stopgap to not have a standing army.</quote>Since when have facts and logic ever got in the way of modern conservatism? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Compsognathus 10/31/23 2:52:55 PM #99:	What I've seen there are three types of Republicans in regards to the MAGA takeover. Type One: Doesn't care about the MAGA takeover because they support the MAGA takeover. Pretty self-explanatory. Type Two: Doesn't like the direction their party is going but still votes for it because they are single issue voters and that issue is still apart of the the Republican ticket. They are typically pretty sheepish about the whole thing, to avoid conflict with their Type One friends or their Democrat friends, and will often claim how they wish things could return to normalcy. Type Three: Don't like the direction the party is going and no longer vote for it. They will be adamant that they aren't democrats but that they are currently the lesser evil. They keep hoping for a return to normalcy and a Republican candidate that isn't insane/embarrassing. They still might vote Republican in more local elections. They'll do everything they can to avoid talking about politics. But the key takeaway is that MAGAs are psychotic and hyper-aggressive. So less extreme Republicans are literally intimidated into being quiet. They also make up at least a plurality if not an outright majority of the Republican voter base so politicians basically can't ignore them unless they live in very purple areas if they want to win. --- 1 line break(s), 160 characters allowed <cite>Compsognathus posted [p:976959798] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>What I've seen there are three types of Republicans in regards to the MAGA takeover.Type One: Doesn't care about the MAGA takeover because they support the MAGA takeover. Pretty self-explanatory.Type Two: Doesn't like the direction their party is going but still votes for it because they are single issue voters and that issue is still apart of the the Republican ticket. They are typically pretty sheepish about the whole thing, to avoid conflict with their Type One friends or their Democrat friends, and will often claim how they wish things could return to normalcy.Type Three: Don't like the direction the party is going and no longer vote for it. They will be adamant that they aren't democrats but that they are currently the lesser evil. They keep hoping for a return to normalcy and a Republican candidate that isn't insane/embarrassing. They still might vote Republican in more local elections. They'll do everything they can to avoid talking about politics.But the key takeaway is that MAGAs are psychotic and hyper-aggressive. So less extreme Republicans are literally intimidated into being quiet. They also make up at least a plurality if not an outright majority of the Republican voter base so politicians basically can't ignore them unless they live in very purple areas if they want to win. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Ruvan22 11/01/23 9:10:32 AM #100:	nocturnal_traveler posted... I say 1776 because that was after the American revolution. That was also when the second amendment was created. To them, that's the only timeline that matters. I may be getting lost in semantics - are YOU saying that was the status quo? or are you saying conservatives are saying that's the status quo? <cite>Ruvan22 posted [p:976972413] in Why aren't... [t:80606791]...</cite> <quote>nocturnal_traveler posted... </cite><quote>I say 1776 because that was after the American revolution. That was also when the second amendment was created. To them, that's the only timeline that matters.</quote>I may be getting lost in semantics - are YOU saying that was the status quo? or are you saying conservatives are saying that's the status quo?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3

Current Events > Why aren't more true conservatives upset their party was hijacked by radicals? (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Why aren't more true conservatives upset their party was hijacked by radicals?