Made me chuckle as well. The 8th of every month? I like it. Bring out the gimp!Originally Posted by okie52
Made me chuckle as well. The 8th of every month? I like it. Bring out the gimp!
Amnesty on the 8th for 8th!!!
Or Gals trying to tell me that their viewpoint MATTERS. Holy shat Batman. every ****in Politician has an AGENDA. None of them really GAF about the common Man.
****in Professional politicians and their shills suck donkey dicks , as well as any and all lobbyist
Quote
If God wanted Men to look women in the eyes, He wouldnt have gave em Boobs !
So that begs the question, what is your definition of a "conservative"? Hannity is attacked unrelentingly by the left, so if you asked them, I would have to guess that they feel he is a conservative. The verbiage you use to describe him are of the same degree of acrimony that you see from the left. I know you are no leftist.
Does his stance on having a strong military and the fact that he would be considered a "hawk" make him something besides a "conservative" in your mind? What positions has he taken in the past make him so detestable to you and disqualify him as a conservative?
Last edited by champions77; 4/16/2015 at 09:29 AM.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, it's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-----Winston Churchill
That's a very good question.
Actual conservatism traces its roots back to the Jeffersonian/southern agrarian tradition represented, in its modern form, by what is called 'traditional conservatism' (which appears to be an oxymoron but it definitely is not) or sometimes called the 'old right.' I prefer the term 'paleoconservative.' It's a philosophy centered around preserving traditional American political (Declaration/Constitution) and social (western European heritage) institutions. To that end, traditional conservatism values *de-centralization* and *regionalism* rather than *centralization* and *nationalism*. The idea is that your family, local community, state, and geographical region are the most important political sub-divisions with paramount power residing with the individual state or reserved to the individual (as per the Constitution). It actually resembles a quasi-libertarian philosophy in its emphasis for individual liberty and hostility toward government/national state EXCEPT when that libertarianesque philosophy conflicts with preserving western European heritage and identity. Traditional conservatism is distrustful of and hostile toward globalization which means, in practical terms, traditional conservatives oppose open-ended free trade agreements such as NAFTA. A traditional conservative would seek to preserve American jobs and industry that become a casualty to globalization. Traditional conservatism is also opposed to foreign interventionism and the sort of Wilsonian/Trotskian foreign policy that is en-vogue on both sides of the aisle. Note: non-interventionism is NOT the same thing as isolationism. Non-interventionism was the default conservative position for most of its history. Only recently has that changed.
-----
On the other hand, you have right-wing nationalists. Now, our right-wing nationalists resemble nationalists everywhere else in the world. They emphasize increasing the power of the national state/government. To that end, they support policies which bolster the government's/nation's power whether it be domestically, internationally, or both. That's not to say they support policies which always make the government itself stronger -- they support policies which make the national *state* stronger...as in the entity itself not necessarily the government of that national state. This is the case with our nationalists. They support policies that expand the power and prestige of the country itself -- the Untied States as an entity. Now, of course, many people are going to think that's wonderful. The problem is that those policies often come at the expense of liberty and are often extra-constitutional or flat out unconstitutional which is why you have so many Republicans who support un-constitutional laws that subvert the spirit and letter of the document. Hannity is an example of a nationalist. He supports increasing the power and prestige of the United States at whatever cost whether it be fundamental civil liberties here at home, a loss of constitutional state power, or the wasting of trillions in foreign wars and interventionism. Nationalists support a strong military and question the patriotism of anyone who doesn't while a traditional conservative values national defense but is considerably more distrustful of a strong military as agents of and representative of the power of the state.
As I said, in many cases, nationalist goals and traditional conservative goals are indistinguishable. You have to dig pretty deep to find the differences. It's sort of like neanderthals vs. modern humans co-existing side by side. If neanderthals had lived, they may have become virtually indistinguishable from modern humans....but the two have very different origins.
Last edited by SicEmBaylor; 4/16/2015 at 11:48 AM.
If you want two real world examples of the differences between a traditional conservative and a nationalist/neoconservative then look no further than these two men: Pat Buchanan is the unofficial spokesman for traditional/paleoconservatism while Bill Kristol is at the apex of the nationalist/neoconservative movement. Now, both men consider themselves to be 'conservative' but the two couldn't be more different in what that conservatism looks like. Most people look at the differences between the two as simply fluctuations in policy positions between two individual men, but it most certainly is not -- those differences represent major philosophical differences.
Take a look at two 'conservative' magazines as well: The American Conservative (traditional conservatism) and the Weekly Standard or National Review (right-wing nationalism, especially the former). Read those two enough side-by-side and you start to better understand the differences.
Sean Hannity was for the massive surveillance state before he was against it.
Honest to God, I've never heard Hannity utter a single insightful, note worthy, or original thought. I used to listen to his radio show quite a bit, but I just had to stop. Fox News isn't even remotely watchable -- the entire network is uber cringe worthy.
...and don't get me started on Mark Levin. I'm going to chunk my shoe at him if I ever see him in person.
Sean Hannity threw jeb a bunch of softballs at the Conservative convention (CPAC). Really disgusting.
I'd like to throw a softball at Hannity.
Fiscal responsibility, foreign policy realism and pragmatism, and staunch protection of civil liberties. Neither party delivers on these.
O'Rielly on the radio is not horrible - high praise indeed.
It is also fun to watch him and Jon Stewart spar. You can tell that they like each other but disagree. We could use more of that in our culture.
Okay, now you're just being a **** ball. What you call a conservative is at least on the same side of these guys compass. I'll admit, I don't like Hannity because he's a talking head that repeats himself over and over, but when you start putting all these guy's in the same boat, they are all after the same thing. LESS Government, States Rights, ETC...You're not gonna get the country going in the direction you want in one election. You're gonna have to vote peeps in that will START to get it going in the right direction and hopefully, over several terms, it get's to where we need it. Stop acting like it's an end all be all for every election. Let's get somebody like Rand or Scott in there that can start changing the direction...
OleVet Posse Instigator
SO MANY people don't understand this. Leftists, and Libertarians both seem to be driven by their dislike of foreign presence of the US military. That would include 3rd party guys like Sicem.Okay, now you're just being a **** ball. What you call a conservative is at least on the same side of these guys compass. I'll admit, I don't like Hannity because he's a talking head that repeats himself over and over, but when you start putting all these guy's in the same boat, they are all after the same thing. LESS Government, States Rights, ETC...You're not gonna get the country going in the direction you want in one election. You're gonna have to vote peeps in that will START to get it going in the right direction and hopefully, over several terms, it get's to where we need it. Stop acting like it's an end all be all for every election. Let's get somebody like Rand or Scott in there that can start changing the direction...
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
No matter who each party nominates, the candidate will get at least 40 percent of the vote, guaranteed. Some people will always vote Democrats, some people will always vote Republican, and I'd put each side at about 40, regardless of who the candidate is.if she's is the best candidate the Dems have, then thats terrible
Is Hillary Clinton a candidate that can grab any part of the remaining 20 percent? No, and that's why Dems won't pick her, unless she's the only one that runs
Your new name is 'Jon Snow.'
Don't look now but you have a lot more in common with Hannity's brand of conservatism than you do with these socialists you find in today's Democratic Party. At least I hope you do. You seem to have a lot bigger problem with some conservatives than you do these leftists that would like the Federal government to be even more intrusive, more controlling, more involved, ultimately to have complete control of our lives, from the womb to the tomb. 90% tax rates, Cap and Tax, jack booted EPA thugs locking down farms over the rumor of the death of an endangered rat being killed, and illegals streaming across the border, notwithstanding the crime, diseases and additional costs to educate, imprison and provide health care to each and every one, driving cities and communities to the brink of bankruptcy.
Expanding the welfare state is job one of these statist that want to circumvent the Constitution at every opportunity. BHO's efforts in this area, with record numbers now receiving federal government benefits and his unlawful revisions of Constitution Law provides a road map for future socialist to follow.
So no, I am not going to beat up Sean Hannity like you. He has taken on these leftists enough that he receives death threats on a daily basis from them.
SicEm you have an odd manner in which if someone is not near 100% to your liking, then they are demonized as thrown out with the trash. And I can promise you, that your boogie man Sean Hannity has a lot more in common with Pat Buchanan, then 98% of those now residing in the Socialist Party, I mean the Democratic Party. Seems to me you should have a much bigger problem with the likes of Ed Shultz or that little Boy Rachel Madow.
Of course after you made that ridiculous statement a few weeks back that we should respect Iran because they are a sovereign nation, and should not be concerned with them until they begin firing nuclear missiles in our direction is one for the ages. That brand of thinking really discredits your ilk in the Paleo-Conservative movement.
Last edited by champions77; 4/16/2015 at 02:01 PM.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, it's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-----Winston Churchill
Yeah, cause hacks like Hannity and Limbaugh would never do such a thing. Hypocrites.
What I don't like about the conservative talk show guys...and I'm conservative...is they don't allow discussion. They rarely (when I listen) allow anyone with a different view to be heard. I'm like let them speak..THEN disagree and show them the truth...but they just shout them down...ugh.
Let the facts do the talking.
How do you know if you get there, if you don't know where you are going?..oh and I had 1,713 post on the "other board"..I hate being a rookie again!
Posting Permissions
