Conservative vs Liberal

[JonC]

On another thread a member brought up whether somebody is a social conservative, as opposed to social liberalism.

This brings up the question of definitions- what exactly is a conservative.

Here are some ideas I consider conservative:

1. A limited federal government
2. Anti-abortion
3. Secure borders
4. Fiscal responsibility and accountability
5. Capitalism
6. Stronger State rights
7. Free market
8. Abolishing Critical Race Theory
9. Constitutionalist approach
10. Support of 2nd Ammendment rights
11. Free speech

I'm sure there are more, but that's a quick snapshot.

 

[Revmitchell]

I don't believe for a second the op is true in the slightest.

 

[JonC]

I don't believe for a second the op is true in the slightest.

Well, it certainly is not complete.

Those were just some of the things that I consider to be conservative.

If we go into morality then I'd list a slew of Christian values. The reason is it seems to me that the left stands opposed to those values (the leftist agenda seems opposed to anything remotely Christian).

That said, you do not have to agree. You certainly wouldn't be the only one.

 

[JonC]

The reason I believe it is important to define our terns here is there have been instances where "leftist", "liberal", "Democrat", etc. has been applied to others without explanation.

It has been applied to me, and I know I am not the only one. Yet I hold those values I posted in the OP (values I believe to be conservative).

 

[Revmitchell]

On another thread a member brought up whether somebody is a social conservative, as opposed to social liberalism.

This brings up the question of definitions- what exactly is a conservative.

Here are some ideas I consider conservative:

1. A limited federal government
2. Anti-abortion
3. Secure borders
4. Fiscal responsibility and accountability
5. Capitalism
6. Stronger State rights
7. Free market
8. Abolishing Critical Race Theory
9. Constitutionalist approach
10. Support of 2nd Ammendment rights
11. Free speech

I'm sure there are more, but that's a quick snapshot.

Where is the link to this post that said these views are leftist?

 

[JonC]

Where is the link to this post that said these views are leftist?

???

 

[Revmitchell]

???

In the op you said someone said those views are leftist. Where is that post at?

Not sure why this needs explaining.

 

[Revmitchell]

On another thread a member brought up whether somebody is a social conservative, as opposed to social liberalism.

This brings up the question of definitions- what exactly is a conservative.

Here are some ideas I consider conservative:

1. A limited federal government
2. Anti-abortion
3. Secure borders
4. Fiscal responsibility and accountability
5. Capitalism
6. Stronger State rights
7. Free market
8. Abolishing Critical Race Theory
9. Constitutionalist approach
10. Support of 2nd Ammendment rights
11. Free speech

I'm sure there are more, but that's a quick snapshot.

Right here you brought up what was said in another thread. Where is that thread and more specifically the post in question.

 

[JonC]

In the op you said someone said those views are leftist. Where is that post at?

Not sure why this needs explaining.

No. On another thread a member brought up whether somebody is a social conservative, as opposed to social liberalism.

I am saying these terms need defining.

The OP is post #1. I am not sure what part needs explaining.

 

[Revmitchell]

No. On another thread a member brought up whether somebody is a social conservative, as opposed to social liberalism.

I am saying these terms need defining.

The OP is post #1. I am not sure what part needs explaining.

Well you edited out the word leftist. But either way where is the link to the other thread so we can see what you are talking about and why do you refuse to link to it since you are making an accusation of "another member".

 

[JonC]

Right here you brought up what was said in another thread. Where is that thread and more specifically the post in question.

There isn't a specific post in question.

We talk about people being centrists, moderates, conservatives, leftists, liberals.

I am saying we need to nail down our terms.

I am asking for a definition of conservative vs liberal ideas.

Why is this so hard for you to understand.

A better political test

 

[JonC]

Well you edited out the word leftist. But either way where is the link to the other thread so we can see what you are talking about and why do you refuse to link to it since you are making an accusation of "another member".

I'm not making an accusation against another member.

If it helps, I'll say Biden is a liberal (or a leftist). Go off that.

Any member on this thread who has read the political forum knows members refer to people as conservative, liberal, leftist, alt-right, far-left, ect.

What part of the OP do you disagree with? How do you define conservative and liberal?

 

[Revmitchell]

There isn't a specific post in question.

You said in the op:

"On another thread a member brought up whether somebody is a social conservative, as opposed to social liberalism."


Based in that alone there is a specific post in question. And I have been asking this question since before you edited your post to minimize your accusation.

 

[JonC]

You said in the op:

"On another thread a member brought up whether somebody is a social conservative, as opposed to social liberalism."


Based in that alone there is a specific post in question. And I have been asking this question since before you edited your post to minimize your accusation.

No, not a specific post (there were several). But the posts are not the topic. The topic is defining terms.

On this thread:
Supreme Court Considers Taking Brunson vs Adams @Aaron said that @canadyjd supported the left.

But from what I have read about their positions on the US Constitution @canadyjd seems more conservative than @Aaron . He does not seem a leftist at all.

So how do we define the terms?

 

[JonC]

Now, when it comes to morality I'd define conservative as holding to traditional Christian values and liberalism as the sins of Romans 3 (the DNC platform).

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Both conservatives and liberals (but not leftists) hold to a personal responsibility for active involvement in holding government accountable to protect their rights and in influencing government to promote their political positions, including via voicing their views, voting, and campaigning, with the real option of themselves running for and holding political office.

 

[JonC]

Both conservatives and liberals (but not leftists) hold to a personal responsibility for active involvement in holding government accountable to protect their rights and in influencing government to promote their political positions, including via voicing their views, voting, and campaigning, with the real option of themselves running for and holding political office.

Interesting definition.

So in your view conservative and liberal is not descriptive of values or beliefs but rather political action and involvement.

That makes sence when it comes to weighing political capitol. Those who hold conservative values and beliefs but abstain from politics are not legitimate resources for a political party or political movement.

In this case conservative and liberal would have nothing to do with morality. Considering that, I suppose I typically combine moral values into those terms.

The word "leftist" means having left wing political views. The opposite is "right-wing". If I understand you correctly, you believe leftist and right wing defines values while conservative and liberal defines political activism.

I always considered conservative and liberal to define values and leftist (left-wing) and right wing to define political affiliation.

Other than swapping those terms, I think we agree in that one word refers to activism while another to beliefs.

 

[Aaron]

Where is the link to this post that said these views are leftist?

LOL. I've been so busy lately, and I have so little time still. But look forward to catching up soon.

As usual, Jon is reframing the argument of his opponent. Jon adopted and used lib-speak to say that the plaintiffs in Brunson vs Adams, which alleges that members of Congress violated their oath of office for not investigating credible disputes of the validity of the electoral votes delivered in the 2020 steal, are seeking judicial activism, when clearly they are not.

He spoke of "Alt-Right" judges, as if the "Alt-Right" is something other than a caricature created by the left to demonize their conservative opponents.

I simply said "Alt-Right" is lib-speak for social conservatives.


Completely ignoring the entire purpose and power implied by the process of certification, which Congress convened to do, it was asked where the Constitution gives Congress the power to investigate elections, (or anything for that matter).

So I pressed them to tell me where the Constitution gives Congress the power of subpoena, which Congress is so sadistically wielding against their political opponents in the January 6 show trials, and they might have a clue.

They weren't expecting that. So I pointed out that implied powers seem to be well and good when they're used by the Left, but for a conservative to appeal for (real) justice, there had better be a goshdarned verbatim in the goshdarned original text, or you're not a goshdarned Constitutionalist.

So I called out the duplicity, and now this thread, in which Jon is trying to say, "I am too a conservative!"

 

[JonC]

LOL. I've been so busy lately, and I have so little time still. But look forward to catching up soon.

As usual, Jon is reframing the argument of his opponent. Jon adopted and used lib-speak to say that the plaintiffs in Brunson vs Adams, which alleges that members of Congress violated their oath of office for not investigating credible disputes of the validity of the electoral votes delivered in the 2020 steal, are seeking judicial activism, when clearly they are not.

He spoke of "Alt-Right" judges, as if the "Alt-Right" is something other than a caricature created by the left to demonize their conservative opponents.

I simply said "Alt-Right" is lib-speak for social conservatives.


Completely ignoring the entire purpose and power implied by the process of certification, which Congress convened to do, it was asked where the Constitution gives Congress the power to investigate elections, (or anything for that matter).

So I pressed them to tell me where the Constitution gives Congress the power of subpoena, which they are so sadistically wielding against their political opponents in the January 6 show trials, and they might have a clue.

They weren't expecting that. So I pointed out that implied powers seem to be well and good when they're used by the Left, but for a conservative to appeal for (real) justice, there had better be a goshdarned verbatim in the goshdarned original text, or you're not a goshdarned Constitutionalist.

So I called out the subterfuge, and now this thread, in which Jon is trying to say, "I am too a conservative!"

Perhaps you should have caught up before you responded.

I am saying that we need to define the terms we use.

I gave an explanation of what I believe to be conservative values (liberal values being the opposite).

@RighteousnessTemperance& explained that he views conservative and liberal not as values or beliefs but acting politically on those beliefs.

I have not said anything about an opponent.

I have not claimed that those who believes the US Constitution required Confress to investigate elections within a State are seeking judicial activism.

As usual you are making stuff up.

My argument against Congress interfering in how a State conducts an election is that I simply do not want the Federal Government that involved in the affairs of the State. I also do not support terminating or suspending the US Constitution.

But you, once again, are fighting strawmen of your own invention. The bad part is that you make false claims about other people's positions (again, a reoccurring problem with your posts).

 

[Aaron]

I have not claimed that those who believes the US Constitution required Confress to investigate elections within a State are seeking judicial activism.

As usual you are making stuff up.

You argued judicial activism here,
Supreme Court Considers Taking Brunson vs Adams

here,
Supreme Court Considers Taking Brunson vs Adams

and here.
Supreme Court Considers Taking Brunson vs Adams


You are saying the judges would have to be activists to find for the plaintiffs. Meaning, you are saying the plaintiffs are seeking judicial activism.