Post Left Wing looniness here

[mb227]

Lesbians don't belong on the Right by definition.

Excuse me?

 

[mchammer]

@mb227 is he right?

I don't think this is true. In fact most lesbians that I've known in real life (not of the activist class) were Right-leaning.

The ones I know work for Exxon, chevron, etc. Anecdotal for sure but likely not an aberration.

 

[Horn6721]

 

[OUBubba]

...there must be one person living in Oklahoma who doesn't;t smoke meth and is actually a Longhorn fan.

I'm not so sure about that.

 

[Monahorns]

Excuse me?

Part of Conservatism is traditional Christian morality. Anyone can be for limited government and monetary/financial constraint, but that is only a part of what makes up Conservatism. Traditionally those issues are more liberal than conservative anyway. We need to be clear about the words we use. Changing the definition of words is a Leftist ploy to pull society their direction. A conservative will want to preserve definitions of words a political labels.

Conservatism has been losing the social/cultural war for a long time now, except now maybe abortion, but that doesn't mean Conservatism changed.

Now maybe the Republican Party becomes a liberal party socially, but that just means it isn't as conservative as it once was.

I would think someone who is LGBT and for limited government and a high level of individual rights is more libertarian not conservative.

 

[mchammer]

We need to be clear about the words we use.

You said “Right” initially, not conservatism.

 

[OUBubba]

Part of Conservatism is traditional Christian morality. Anyone can be for limited government and monetary/financial constraint, but that is only a part of what makes up Conservatism. Traditionally those issues are more liberal than conservative anyway. We need to be clear about the words we use. Changing the definition of words is a Leftist ploy to pull society their direction. A conservative will want to preserve definitions of words a political labels.

Conservatism has been losing the social/cultural war for a long time now, except now maybe abortion, but that doesn't mean Conservatism changed.

Now maybe the Republican Party becomes a liberal party socially, but that just means it isn't as conservative as it once was.

I would think someone who is LGBT and for limited government and a high level of individual rights is more libertarian not conservative.

Christian Nationalism is helping tear our Republic apart. Our nation is built on freedom from religion. The founding fathers would be appalled at both ends our our political spectrum.

 

[Monahorns]

You said “Right” initially, not conservatism.

Are they not the same? I don't think Republican and Right or conservative are the same. But the Right has been Conservative wing of politics since the left-right spectrum was used in 18th Century France.

 

[Horn6721]

No no no
Bubba
Our nation was NOT built on freedom from religion.
That is a completely inane statement.

 

[mchammer]

Part of Conservatism is traditional Christian morality.

And what about the other parts? You seem to be implying that you have to be 100% conservative to be a conservative. That doesn’t seem practical or even possible with humans.

 

[Monahorns]

Christian Nationalism is helping tear our Republic apart. Our nation is built on freedom from religion. The founding fathers would be appalled at both ends our our political spectrum.

Our nation was built by committed Christians. Even those who were Deist promoted Biblical morality 100%. Most of the original states had state churches too. Rhode Island was the first where there was religious freedom. Georgia and Pennsylvania followed suit. The Federal government can't establish a church over all states but each state can if they so desire. You don't get America without Christianity. I don't promote state or national churches but facts are facts.

The founding fathers would be appalled at how immoral we are, how large we have allowed the government to get, income taxes, the Federal Reserve, and how many ways we start and all without Congressional approval. They would probably also be appalled that we give the right to vote to non-property owners.

 

[Monahorns]

You seem to be implying that you have to be 100% conservative to be a conservative. That doesn’t seem practical or even possible with humans.

Maybe I did. But more I was trying to describe what the concept is definitionally. Politically, practically anyone who will vote against the Far Left is good. Just not sure how a lasting victory is possible if we keep changing values and goals. We will probably either never "win" or it will just go back to where it was since fundamental issues weren't addressed.

 

[guy4321]

The founding fathers would be appalled at how immoral we are, how large we have allowed the government to get, income taxes, the Federal Reserve, and how many ways we start and all without Congressional approval. They would probably also be appalled that we give the right to vote to non-property owners.

And women, whatever the definition of that is.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Our nation is built on freedom from religion.

You might want to check yourself there, coach.

Our nation was founded on the notion of being free from any official government imposed religion, like Henry VIII did with the Church of England. It was not founded on the notion that no religion was a good idea.

 

[Garmel]

Just like with the 2nd Amendment argument Bubba just follows MSM propaganda instead of following the facts.

 

[Horn6721]

Surely he is just posting stupid stuff like that to see how many responses he gets

 

[Garmel]

Surely he is just posting stupid stuff like that to see how many responses he gets

I hope so. However, you can't underestimate the MSM cult.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Christian Nationalism is helping tear our Republic apart. Our nation is built on freedom from religion. The founding fathers would be appalled at both ends our our political spectrum.

Again, very thin ice, Coach. The founders were ok with official state churches. I disagree with that. In fact I'm a believer in the literal separation of church and state (for both the sake of the church and the state). However, the degree to which the Left has taken that concept would horrify the founders. The Right is much, much closer to their view on the issue. After all, there is pretty much a consensus on not having a state church. The founders didn't have that consensus.

 

[Mr. Deez]

So Monahorns and I disagreed on something, and all it took was Switzer opening his mouth to put us back on the same side. Lol.

 

[Monahorns]

So Monahorns and I disagreed on something, and all it took was Switzer opening his mouth to put us back on the same side. Lol.

Switzer is very much a unifier.

 

[OUBubba]

So Monahorns and I disagreed on something, and all it took was Switzer opening his mouth to put us back on the same side. Lol.

You're welcome. I thought the debate in this thread was akin to debating the second level of depth chart on the OL.

I concur that they were moral and they were Christian. I'm often told on this little corner of the world that while they didn't foresee social media and AR-15's at the time, the framework of the constitution allows for these things. Similarly, the framework would not want the Pharisee-like public religion that we see with the GOP now. A friend's dad was a Mennonite minister and it irritated him 40 years ago when he was called on to pray at school functions. Can you imagine the rage that would come out if Muslims were the dominant religion and started praying at the 50 yard line?

 

[OUBubba]

Surely he is just posting stupid stuff like that to see how many responses he gets

Working on my "likes". I think Dion should give me a discount for driving traffic.

 

[Garmel]

You're welcome. I thought the debate in this thread was akin to debating the second level of depth chart on the OL.

I concur that they were moral and they were Christian. I'm often told on this little corner of the world that while they didn't foresee social media and AR-15's at the time, the framework of the constitution allows for these things. Similarly, the framework would not want the Pharisee-like public religion that we see with the GOP now. A friend's dad was a Mennonite minister and it irritated him 40 years ago when he was called on to pray at school functions. Can you imagine the rage that would come out if Muslims were the dominant religion and started praying at the 50 yard line?

School prayer happened during the Founders' time. How can you be so devoid of basic facts like this?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Similarly, the framework would not want the Pharisee-like public religion that we see with the GOP now.

Coach, not only were they OK with "public religion," they were literally OK with public religion. Congregationalism was the official church and religion of much of New England for decades after the First Amendment was ratified, and the founders were OK with that. They could make it official, give it taxpayer money, and require its citizens to be members. It was later disestablished, but that was voluntary. It was not a federal constitutional matter.

A friend's dad was a Mennonite minister and it irritated him 40 years ago when he was called on to pray at school functions.

That's fine. He has freedom of conscience and didn't have to do it.

Can you imagine the rage that would come out if Muslims were the dominant religion and started praying at the 50 yard line?

If it was mandatory, yes there would be a rage, but if a Muslim student or teacher prayed at the 50 yard line, no, there wouldn't be a rage so long as it was voluntary and not interfering with school activities. Furthermore, the law would and should side with the student or teacher. And of course, if that teacher got fired for it, your side would crap its pants about "Islamophobia."

 

[OUBubba]

Coach, not only were they OK with "public religion," they were literally OK with public religion. Congregationalism was the official church and religion of much of New England for decades after the First Amendment was ratified, and the founders were OK with that. They could make it official, give it taxpayer money, and require its citizens to be members. It was later disestablished, but that was voluntary. It was not a federal constitutional matter.



That's fine. He has freedom of conscience and didn't have to do it.



If it was mandatory, yes there would be a rage, but if a Muslim student or teacher prayed at the 50 yard line, no, there wouldn't be a rage so long as it was voluntary and not interfering with school activities. Furthermore, the law would and should side with the student or teacher. And of course, if that teacher got fired for it, your side would crap its pants about "Islamophobia."

Please. The Sharia Law ******** would be impossible to avoid.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Please. The Sharia Law ******** would be impossible to avoid.

What does Sharia law have to do with an individual praying?

 

[OUBubba]

What does Sharia law have to do with an individual praying?

Maybe you've not been paying attention to the base these days. Hell, they still think the election was stolen.

 

[Vol Horn 4 Life]

Maybe you've not been paying attention to the base these days. Hell, they still think the election was stolen.

Clearly you haven't been paying attention. We don't care if you express your individual religion or lack of. Just don't try to force me to convert to your beliefs. If my kid wants to pray to God, your kid wants to pray to Allah and someone else's kid wants to sit at his locker and pick his nose and eat boogers then so be it.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Seems like the 3rd kid would be more likely to hail from Oklahoma, don't you think?

 

[nashhorn]

The founding fathers would be appalled at how immoral we are,

uhhh, I don’t think they are the only appalled.