November 9, 200421 yr http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=5652 BUSH USA is predominantly white; devoutly Christian (mostly Protestant); openly, vigorously heterosexual; an open land of single-family homes and ranches; economically sound (except for a few farms), but not drunk with cyberworld business development, and mainly English-speaking, with a predilection for respectfully uttering "yes, ma'am" and "yes, sir." GORE/KERRY USA is ethnically diverse; multi-religious, irreligious or nastily antireligious; more sexually liberated (if not in actual practice, certainly in attitude); awash with condo canyons and other high-end real estate bordered by sprawling, squalid public housing or neglected private homes, decidedly short of middle-class neighborhoods; both high tech and oddly primitive in its commerce; very artsy, and Babelesque, with abnormally loud speakers. haha. I can't believe this guy.
November 9, 200421 yr Author For all conservatives...is this your ideal US? BUSH USA is predominantly white; devoutly Christian (mostly Protestant); openly, vigorously heterosexual; an open land of single-family homes and ranches; economically sound (except for a few farms), but not drunk with cyberworld business development, and mainly English-speaking, with a predilection for respectfully uttering "yes, ma'am" and "yes, sir."
November 9, 200421 yr For all conservatives...is this your ideal US? BUSH USA is predominantly white; devoutly Christian (mostly Protestant); openly, vigorously heterosexual; an open land of single-family homes and ranches; economically sound (except for a few farms), but not drunk with cyberworld business development, and mainly English-speaking, with a predilection for respectfully uttering "yes, ma'am" and "yes, sir." 611730[/snapback] NO!!!!! Dammit. Stop the blanket statements, all of you.
November 10, 200421 yr For all conservatives...is this your ideal US? BUSH USA is predominantly white; devoutly Christian (mostly Protestant); openly, vigorously heterosexual; an open land of single-family homes and ranches; economically sound (except for a few farms), but not drunk with cyberworld business development, and mainly English-speaking, with a predilection for respectfully uttering "yes, ma'am" and "yes, sir." 611730[/snapback] As long as their ain't no naygerz!!!!1 :plain I doubt most Republicans are like this. And to prove my point, I shall have sex with a white non-Christian republican who lives in a condo. :mischief
November 10, 200421 yr For all conservatives...is this your ideal US? BUSH USA is predominantly white; devoutly Christian (mostly Protestant); openly, vigorously heterosexual; an open land of single-family homes and ranches; economically sound (except for a few farms), but not drunk with cyberworld business development, and mainly English-speaking, with a predilection for respectfully uttering "yes, ma'am" and "yes, sir." 611730[/snapback] "vigorously heterosexual".... sounds like a someone who's into S&M or something... lol
November 10, 200421 yr Author For all conservatives...is this your ideal US? BUSH USA is predominantly white; devoutly Christian (mostly Protestant); openly, vigorously heterosexual; an open land of single-family homes and ranches; economically sound (except for a few farms), but not drunk with cyberworld business development, and mainly English-speaking, with a predilection for respectfully uttering "yes, ma'am" and "yes, sir." 611730[/snapback] "vigorously heterosexual".... sounds like a someone who's into S&M or something... lol 612108[/snapback] I think that's the wife-beating and woman subjugation aspect of conservatism.
November 10, 200421 yr The real problem with generalizations is that the Pat Robertson crowd is what most people consider the example of "conservatives", while most essential aspect of conservatism, small/limited government is not even an issue to most, except for the occasional libertarian that wants to challenge the status quo. It is obvious that the "tradtional values" folks have completely overshadowed conservatives such as myself within the Republican party. I don't have a problem with people whose main election issue is morality; I think the extremes on the Democratic party are much more dangerous for America (the environmentalist nutcases, quasi-communist activists, etc.), but it has gotten ridiculous that "conservative" has come to define people in the Ashcroft mold rather than Reagan.
November 10, 200421 yr The real problem with generalizations is that the Pat Robertson crowd is what most people consider the example of "conservatives", while most essential aspect of conservatism, small/limited government is not even an issue to most, except for the occasional libertarian that wants to challenge the status quo. It is obvious that the "tradtional values" folks have completely overshadowed conservatives such as myself within the Republican party. I don't have a problem with people whose main election issue is morality; I think the extremes on the Democratic party are much more dangerous for America (the environmentalist nutcases, quasi-communist activists, etc.), but it has gotten ridiculous that "conservative" has come to define people in the Ashcroft mold rather than Reagan. 612234[/snapback] This is defintely an accurate statement. Not only that but people have to think that a conservative is a religious whacko, similar to a fascist. While a conservative is much more like a classical liberal, like locke. People's whose focus is on a compltely negative state and individual freedom.
November 10, 200421 yr The real problem with generalizations is that the Pat Robertson crowd is what most people consider the example of "conservatives", while most essential aspect of conservatism, small/limited government is not even an issue to most, except for the occasional libertarian that wants to challenge the status quo. It is obvious that the "tradtional values" folks have completely overshadowed conservatives such as myself within the Republican party. I don't have a problem with people whose main election issue is morality; I think the extremes on the Democratic party are much more dangerous for America (the environmentalist nutcases, quasi-communist activists, etc.), but it has gotten ridiculous that "conservative" has come to define people in the Ashcroft mold rather than Reagan. 612234[/snapback] You hit the nail on the head in terms of your side. But there is a vital difference. The nuts on our side have exerted no power. Tell me what programs they have forced through? Id like to know what communist programs have been accomplished? Clinton's welfare reform? If you think medicare, medicaid, and social security are communist, then Bush is one too. There is the difference my friend. Falwell openly says he exerts power in the Republican party. What leftwing nutjob can say he has that power? If you want to say Mike Moore, tell me what of his views have come through to the party platform? We are the ones fighting people who say we have abandoned the left wing of the party like Nader. Thats not the case over there. Look what happens when a social nut yells at ArlenSpector? It becomes front page news and Spector has to back down. You guys are in much more trouble from your nuts than we are.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.