Waiting For The "Conservatives" To Die

[mrjarrell]

That's looking like what it will take to make a significant change in the gop, according to one columnist. The old guard showed just what they think of the young, grass roots cadre at their recent convention. Since working from within for change didn't work, the new blood of sensible fiscal hawks and libertarian minded rnc members will apparently have to wait for nature to take its course before there can be any substantial change in their party. The old guard have shown that they're more than willing to lie, cheat and steal to get their way. What a sad state of affairs it is. "Conservatism", (as it is now) will inevitably die and be replaced. Too bad we have to wait so long.

Once the older generations in America die, so will social conservatism « MichelleFields.com

 

[VikingWarlord]

That's looking like what it will take to make a significant change in the gop, according to one columnist. The old guard showed just what they think of the young, grass roots cadre at their recent convention. Since working from within for change didn't work, the new blood of sensible fiscal hawks and libertarian minded rnc members will apparently have to wait for nature to take its course before there can be any substantial change in their party. The old guard have shown that they're more than willing to lie, cheat and steal to get their way. What a sad state of affairs it is. "Conservatism", (as it is now) will inevitably die and be replaced. Too bad we have to wait so long.

Once the older generations in America die, so will social conservatism « MichelleFields.com

It's a nice thought but I don't know if that's entirely true. I still see plenty of younger folks (under 40) who buy into the whole righteous right social conservative thing. It's not just a bunch of decrepit old Cialis addicts, sadly.

 

[IndyDave1776]

It's a nice thought but I don't know if that's entirely true. I still see plenty of younger folks (under 40) who buy into the whole righteous right social conservative thing. It's not just a bunch of decrepit old Cialis addicts, sadly.

The underlying problem never dies on either side of the aisle, specifically the difference between what is right (according to me/the moral authority I accept) and what I have a moral or Constitutional right to impose on others. Unfortunately, most people believe that if they are right, they have a right, no, a duty, to impose it as law.

I have two basic objections to this way of thinking. First, it doesn't pass muster Constitutionally.

Second, it is categorically impossible to legislate people into believing other than what they will regarding the truth about anything--you cannot force an internal change in another person's state of being. The best you can do is draw a legal line at the next person's boundary.

 

[Jarhead77]

The underlying problem never dies on either side of the aisle, specifically the difference between what is right (according to me/the moral authority I accept) and what I have a moral or Constitutional right to impose on others. Unfortunately, most people believe that if they are right, they have a right, no, a duty, to impose it as law.

I have two basic objections to this way of thinking. First, it doesn't pass muster Constitutionally.

Second, it is categorically impossible to legislate people into believing other than what they will regarding the truth about anything--you cannot force an internal change in another person's state of being. The best you can do is draw a legal line at the next person's boundary.

^^^^^This^^^^ +1

 

[VikingWarlord]

The underlying problem never dies on either side of the aisle, specifically the difference between what is right (according to me/the moral authority I accept) and what I have a moral or Constitutional right to impose on others. Unfortunately, most people believe that if they are right, they have a right, no, a duty, to impose it as law.

I have two basic objections to this way of thinking. First, it doesn't pass muster Constitutionally.

Second, it is categorically impossible to legislate people into believing other than what they will regarding the truth about anything--you cannot force an internal change in another person's state of being. The best you can do is draw a legal line at the next person's boundary.

I agree with all of that. That's why the idea put forth in the original article is flawed. There will always be people who want to legislate their personal morality.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I agree with all of that. That's why the idea put forth in the original article is flawed. There will always be people who want to legislate their personal morality.

You are absolutely right, it isn't just for those of hardened minds and soft 'parts'.

 

[mrjarrell]

I agree with all of that. That's why the idea put forth in the original article is flawed. There will always be people who want to legislate their personal morality.

But, as we have seen, the younger generation have less of a desire to do that. Sure, some of them are social conservatives who'd love nothing better than to inflict their own version of sharia law on us, but they're not in the majority. And, once the pandering die off begins they'll have even less support.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I agree with all of that. That's why the idea put forth in the original article is flawed. There will always be people who want to legislate their personal morality.

All people want to legislate their morality. And that's the problem: yours is different than mine and mine is different than my neighbors'. We typically only notice the other guy's because it will be at odds with our preferences at one point or another.

 

[RockofStrength]

All people want to legislate their morality. And that's the problem: yours is different than mine and mine is different than my neighbors'. We typically only notice the other guy's because it will be at odds with our preferences at one point or another.

Indeed. You may have a stopping point where you say "I can't legislate further than this or I violate your rights" but that is, in the end, merely your opinion on how far government can go.

 

[IndyDave1776]

All people want to legislate their morality. And that's the problem: yours is different than mine and mine is different than my neighbors'. We typically only notice the other guy's because it will be at odds with our preferences at one point or another.

Indeed. You may have a stopping point where you say "I can't legislate further than this or I violate your rights" but that is, in the end, merely your opinion on how far government can go.

It seems that we have rediscovered the foundation of the common law standard for a crime, specifically that an identifiable individual victim is required in order for a crime to have occurred.

 

[Survivalcookie]

This is why social issues should not be the concern of the government. People
interpret the words general welfare that is in the very first paragraph of the Constitution to mean that the government can control every aspect of your life.

 

[K_W]

I'm 28.

Most of my young friends, family, and neighbors are conservatives, libertarians, or at least right leaning moderates. The ones who are liberals, are recent grads or still in college. The interesting bit is a large percentage, myself included, are also atheist or agnostic. Their views tend more towards the right-libertarian side on social issues, and more towards the conservative side on financial and defense issues. Most of the non liberals are pro-gun and one liberal girl is "ok" with guns and has been known to rent and shoot at a range close to campus. One of my friends is an Obama supporting immigrant from Haiti and is wanting to learn to shoot.

I don't think conservatism will die with the oldest generation, but it certainly won't be exactly the same. I see the future of conservatism embracing science and technology, rejecting bigotry, and remaining truer to the Constitution.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

But, as we have seen, the younger generation have less of a desire to do that. Sure, some of them are social conservatives who'd love nothing better than to inflict their own version of sharia law on us, but they're not in the majority. And, once the pandering die off begins they'll have even less support.

And here it is, with this sort of name-calling, hate-filled rhetoric, is it any wonder INGO prohibits religious discussion? Well, I guess it's ok if you're doing it to slander people of faith.

 

[wagyu52]

I am not worried, Liberalism is on a path to extinction.
The Liberal Birth Dearth

 

[gunowner930]

I'm 28.

Most of my young friends, family, and neighbors are conservatives, libertarians, or at least right leaning moderates. The ones who are liberals, are recent grads or still in college. The interesting bit is a large percentage, myself included, are also atheist or agnostic. Their views tend more towards the right-libertarian side on social issues, and more towards the conservative side on financial and defense issues. Most of the non liberals are pro-gun and one liberal girl is "ok" with guns and has been known to rent and shoot at a range close to campus. One of my friends is an Obama supporting immigrant from Haiti and is wanting to learn to shoot.

I don't think conservatism will die with the oldest generation, but it certainly won't be exactly the same. I see the future of conservatism embracing science and technology, rejecting bigotry, and remaining truer to the Constitution.

I think this assessment is right on. For instance, I haven't been around too many people under 30 who think that marijuana should be illegal.

 

[indiucky]

And here it is, with this sort of name-calling, hate-filled rhetoric, is it any wonder INGO prohibits religious discussion? Well, I guess it's ok if you're doing it to slander people of faith.

Good one Sir. I often laugh at the lack of tolerance of the tolerant.

 

[gunowner930]

But, as we have seen, the younger generation have less of a desire to do that. Sure, some of them are social conservatives who'd love nothing better than to inflict their own version of sharia law on us, but they're not in the majority. And, once the pandering die off begins they'll have even less support.

And here it is, with this sort of name-calling, hate-filled rhetoric, is it any wonder INGO prohibits religious discussion? Well, I guess it's ok if you're doing it to slander people of faith.

Is there a hateful message encrypted or something?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Good one Sir. I often laugh at the lack of tolerance of the tolerant.

Is there a hateful message encrypted or something?

Some see it, some can't, some don't want too.

 

[Jarhead77]

Is there a hateful message encrypted or something?

Maybe its the reference to >>>>

Sharia (Arabic: شريعة‎ šarīʿah, IPA: [ʃaˈriːʕa], "legislation"; sp. shariah, sharīʿah;[1] also قانون إسلامي qānūn ʾIslāmī) is the moral code and religious law of Islam. Sharia deals with many topics addressed by secular law, including crime, politics, and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, hygiene, diet, prayer, and fasting. Though interpretations of sharia vary between cultures, in its strictest definition it is considered the infallible law of God—as opposed to the human interpretation of the laws (fiqh).

 

[level.eleven]

”Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.” —Ralph Waldo Emerson