We keep hearing "Conservatives" drone on that we need to tread softly on the electorate because although these "conservatives" believe in conservative policies they believe we need "stealth candidates" to get elected. In other words they are are conservatives but prefer to run RINOS because anything else is radical 2010 not withstanding.
So, What is the definition of a a radical righty? Not strategy, not politics but core beliefs. What are the core beliefs of the radical right.
Radical means advocating for dramatic change in any form. The GOP is not going to put up a serious contender that would eliminate the Department of Education, abolish the IRS, or completely privatize social security.
QuoteSo, What is the definition of a a radical righty?
Of course the terms "right" and "left" are relative. They have no fixed definitions.
If what you mean to say, in the context of American politics, is: "What is the definition of a radical conservative," then Google the term "oxymoron."
On the other hand, the term "radical liberal" is essentially a redundancy.
But you hear people described in the media as "radical conservatives" at least ten times more often than you hear the term "radical liberal." And the only people you hear described as "liberal" at all are those at the extreme fringe of a group of people already FAR more liberal than the average American. And there is a reason for that.
Boehner could tell us what the radical right is. He blasts in all the time. My guess is politicians of both parties think anyone wanting to trim govt expansion is a member of the hated radical right.
The 'radical Right' would want government reduced to a smattering of Mom & Pop sized stores across the Country, with a few employees in each. The States would run day-to-day operations of vital services, as determined by their voters. DC would deal with trade and national defense, mainly. The Electoral College system would remain firmly in-place, so population-centers don't overwhelmingly decide Presidential-elections.
I am discounting the notion that the term radical necessarily means bad as often they are conflated it is too often used as a slur. The American Revolution was the most radical change in government in the history of European settlement in North America. Any sorry state of affairs requires radical change, as describes the change of policies after a liberal administration.
The radical right doesn't exist. It's simply a term, made up by liberals, in an attempt to link today's conservatives with the reactionaries and Birchers of the past.
Quote from: kit saginaw on December 16, 2013, 04:44:23 AM
The 'radical Right' would want government reduced...................The Electoral College system would remain firmly in-place, so population-centers don't overwhelmingly decide Presidential-elections.
You are calling our Founding Fathers "radical right". What is wrong with the Electoral College the way that you present it?
Quote from: kit saginaw on December 16, 2013, 04:44:23 AM
The 'radical Right' would want government reduced to a smattering of Mom & Pop sized stores across the Country, with a few employees in each. The States would run day-to-day operations of vital services, as determined by their voters. DC would deal with trade and national defense, mainly. The Electoral College system would remain firmly in-place, so corrupt, Democraptic controlled population-centers don't overwhelmingly decide Presidential-elections.
FIFY
Okay so the definition of the radical right are those that want limited government and want to do away with agencies that are destructive.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on December 16, 2013, 09:57:56 AM
Okay so the definition of the radical right are those that want limited government and want to do away with agencies that are destructive.
To a lib, that's like threatening his parents.
It's a cradle to grave issue with these incompetents. Independence, selfsufficient and freedom scare the crap out of them.
When I hear the term, this is what I think.
It would describe those who don't want government intrusion into every area of their lives. They would like to make choices for themselves, good or bad.
They are people who support "traditional" marriage between a man and a woman, children born within a marriage, a level of religious values. They support the concept of a more civil society, and not being expected to embrace what has been usually considered NOT normal.
I think they would mostly like to live life without government looking at everything.
DaisyJane
Quote from: kit saginaw on December 16, 2013, 04:44:23 AM
The 'radical Right' would want government reduced to a smattering of Mom & Pop sized stores across the Country, with a few employees in each. The States would run day-to-day operations of vital services, as determined by their voters. DC would deal with trade and national defense, mainly. The Electoral College system would remain firmly in-place, so population-centers don't overwhelmingly decide Presidential-elections.
But, but, but...we're a
DEMOCRACY, and
MAJORITY RULES!!!! :biggrin:
Every underwater basket-weaving college major needs a job so basements can be sandblasted for re-use. Every slug too dim to comprehend that hard work never killed anyone will cower under federal auspices, mortally afraid to do any.
10th Amendment and subsidiary political subdivisions were the original intent in Michigan and everywhere else. We were supposed to know our representatives, and we were supposed to keep an eye on them and fight them if we opposed them. Friction was built right into our system, but things sure did work better at a township and county level then. Now it's reversed and everyone depends on OUR money being fed back to us by people we never see and cannot hang when their going gets good.
Quote from: mdgiles on December 16, 2013, 05:47:35 AM
The radical right doesn't exist. It's simply a term, made up by liberals, in an attempt to link today's conservatives with the reactionaries and Birchers of the past.
I couldn't agree more.
Conservatives, TEA Partiers, and even some Republicans, whether they understand the ways in which the Americans put an end to traditional government, align with the framers' evolving views of polity, from the classical whiggish views to a uniquely American view, or what we might call a romantic view. No longer was government set in opposition to a homogeneous, changeless, hierarchical society, but rather it was an instrument of order established by a social compact, an agglomeration of people without title or nobility, of whom distinctions were various and unavoidable, constructing a society for their mutual benefit.
By the time they convened in Philadelphia, the Constitutional delegates had finally conceded to the idea that a nation in its natural state is composed of hostile interests, and that when these various interests put individuals in opposition to one another, the mutual benefit is inescapable.
These conservative, TEA Party concepts of individualism and the natural law are not radical. They're not new. But when conceded to by government, they're uniquely American.
The radicalism is the opposition to these American concepts of government. The liberals are the radicals.
I don't think it good to be always playing partisan politics, or to have extreme views one way or the other. Few choices in life are black or white. It is even the more so in politics, for it is not always a question of "right" or "left," but in choosing rightly and wisely. It's easy to be blinded by partisanship. You know that you are too partisan when your loyalty to your political party takes precedence over your loyalty to your country. On the subject of politics, in particular, people have become so polemic and so partisan that there is no place for argument anymore. The opposing party has become "the enemy." One cannot even agree to disagree for there is no tolerance for opposing views. In his farewell address, George Washington (who is considered the father of our country) advised against political parties. The rest of our so-called "founding fathers" had no hesitation to choosing sides.
Quote from: Graham R.A. Garner on December 16, 2013, 11:20:25 AM
I don't think it good to be always playing partisan politics, or to have extreme views one way or the other. Few choices in life are black or white. It is even the more so in politics, for it is not always a question of "right" or "left," but in choosing rightly and wisely. It's easy to be blinded by partisanship. You know that you are too partisan when your loyalty to your political party takes precedence over your loyalty to your country. On the subject of politics, in particular, people have become so polemic and so partisan that there is no place for argument anymore. The opposing party has become "the enemy." One cannot even agree to disagree for there is no tolerance for opposing views. In his farewell address, George Washington (who is considered the father of our country) advised against political parties. The rest of our so-called "founding fathers" had no hesitation to choosing sides.
Yes it is good. Consensus, simply for the sake of consensus; is what the GOP has been doing since Franklin D. Roosevelt. And many choices in life are exactly black and white. For example the choice of whether to kill another human being or fail to protect your family. The idea that every thing is another shade of grey is the relativistic philosophy of the left. There are things that are simply wrong.
Quote from: Graham R.A. Garner on December 16, 2013, 11:20:25 AM
I don't think it good to be always playing partisan politics, or to have extreme views one way or the other. Few choices in life are black or white. It is even the more so in politics, for it is not always a question of "right" or "left," but in choosing rightly and wisely. It's easy to be blinded by partisanship. You know that you are too partisan when your loyalty to your political party takes precedence over your loyalty to your country. On the subject of politics, in particular, people have become so polemic and so partisan that there is no place for argument anymore. The opposing party has become "the enemy." One cannot even agree to disagree for there is no tolerance for opposing views. In his farewell address, George Washington (who is considered the father of our country) advised against political parties. The rest of our so-called "founding fathers" had no hesitation to choosing sides.
Incorrect. Liberals are the enemy. They are destroying our country. It really is that simple. Don't let people telling you to be partisan because people scream over each other on talk shows spur you to not feel like you can't recognize and acknowledge the destruction our our country and freedoms by liberalism.
The radical right are the people who say liberal policy hurts the country, and when it comes true, are still radical, even when the affected libs who are pissed at the predicted policy take the same position.
Who is the "radical right"? It is the name that the left gives to people like you and me to make us seem scary, mean, and wrong. Name calling is all the left (from Bohner and McCain all the way up to Obama and Reid) has when their policies fail and they start getting worried that people might listen to the opinion of others.
Quote from: Montesquieu on December 16, 2013, 01:51:28 AM
Radical means advocating for dramatic change in any form. The GOP is not going to put up a serious contender that would eliminate the Department of Education, abolish the IRS, or completely privatize social security.
:thumbup:
Looks like a radical righty is someone that wants to fix the problems and has the balls to do it.
Reagan wanted to eliminate the Department of Education. Did he do it?
Quote from: The Boo Man... on December 16, 2013, 02:37:50 PM
Looks like a radical righty is someone that wants to fix the problems and has the balls to do it.
Boners replacement....(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftodaysnuttyjoke.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F10%2Fthis-guy-300x224.jpg&hash=d67223605f6e4c32f00035debf6aa04f3954f42a)
Quote from: Solar on December 16, 2013, 04:34:58 PM
Boners replacement....
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftodaysnuttyjoke.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F10%2Fthis-guy-300x224.jpg&hash=d67223605f6e4c32f00035debf6aa04f3954f42a)
Now
those are some balls!
Quote from: The Boo Man... on December 16, 2013, 04:45:47 PM
Now those are some balls!
Something seriously lacking in the GOP.
Quote from: Solar on December 16, 2013, 04:49:38 PM
Something seriously lacking in the GOP.
Finally! The Republicans have a minority they can pander to. The testicle challenged. The Democrats have the blacks, latinos, gays, women and now Republicans have the emasculated which could attract metrosexual liberals. What a strategy!
Quote from: The Boo Man... on December 16, 2013, 05:11:47 PM
Finally! The Republicans have a minority they can pander to. The testicle challenged. The Democrats have the blacks, latinos, gays, women and now Republicans have the emasculated which could attract metrosexual liberals. What a strategy!
...don't forget the transvestite vote...
Quote from: taxed on December 16, 2013, 06:00:11 PM
...don't forget the transvestite vote...
I smell coalition!
Quote from: The Boo Man... on December 16, 2013, 06:08:19 PM
I smell coalition!
If you think Sandra Fluke was something, wait 'til you see a Chaz Bono rally...
Quote from: quiller on December 16, 2013, 10:30:51 AM
But, but, but...we're a DEMOCRACY, and MAJORITY RULES!!!! :biggrin:
Every underwater basket-weaving college major needs a job so basements can be sandblasted for re-use. Every slug too dim to comprehend that hard work never killed anyone will cower under federal auspices, mortally afraid to do any.
10th Amendment and subsidiary political subdivisions were the original intent in Michigan and everywhere else. We were supposed to know our representatives, and we were supposed to keep an eye on them and fight them if we opposed them. Friction was built right into our system, but things sure did work better at a township and county level then. Now it's reversed and everyone depends on OUR money being fed back to us by people we never see and cannot hang when their going gets good.
Why do people have such a difficult time with the word Republic anyway??
Genghis Khan would be a good example of radical right. I think the term radical has been a wee bit over-used by all sides of the political spectrum. Seems now it's simply used all to often as a derogatory expression and associated with people and beliefs that are not necessarily radical (IMO). What is radical is any party or person circumventing the limitations of federal government as defined by our constitution to push an agenda. :thumbdown:
Quote from: LIAMD on December 16, 2013, 07:23:17 PM
Genghis Khan would be a good example of radical right.
Why do idiots keep repeating this?
Do some people use the term "right" as synonymous with generically "evil" or something?
Quote from: LIAMD on December 16, 2013, 07:23:17 PM
Genghis Khan would be a good example of radical right. I think the term radical has been a wee bit over-used by all sides of the political spectrum. Seems now it's simply used all to often as a derogatory expression and associated with people and beliefs that are not necessarily radical (IMO). What is radical is any party or person circumventing the limitations of federal government as defined by our constitution to push an agenda. :thumbdown:
Incorrect. Hussein is a radical.
Quote from: taxed on December 16, 2013, 07:54:11 PM
Incorrect. Hussein is a radical.
Re-read my post and try again. What part of KenyanCare fits within the limits of the constitution? You are, however, correct that Barry is radical...as would a Pub if they pulled the same shit.
Quote from: LIAMD on December 16, 2013, 08:14:58 PM
Re-read my post and try again. What part of KenyanCare fits within the limits of the constitution? You are, however, correct that Barry is radical...as would a Pub if they pulled the same shit.
You said the term was overused by both sides..... Hussein and the Marxists are radicals.... Sorry if I misread....
Quote from: LIAMD on December 16, 2013, 07:23:17 PM
Genghis Khan would be a good example of radical right. I think the term radical has been a wee bit over-used by all sides of the political spectrum. Seems now it's simply used all to often as a derogatory expression and associated with people and beliefs that are not necessarily radical (IMO). What is radical is any party or person circumventing the limitations of federal government as defined by our constitution to push an agenda. :thumbdown:
Genghis Khan's writings on the failings of Keynesian Economics are well known....
Radical Republican, to me, is far reaching reality. Don't get me wrong, I think it is ok. What's wrong in wanting issues to be on the side of what the founders outlined? To be that and more so is what is needed to get this country back on the right track. Each generation has it's own set of problems and the democracy is that these issues are supposed to be decided on by the people. Where'd that go? How has it gotten so that a particular group, usually a liberal one, can garner enough support to set the rules for the rest of us? Is it really so tough to live life realistically and without material crutches(handouts and give-a-ways) ? What's wrong with hard work? We live in a society that rewards laziness and the recipients are brainwashed into thinking that they have a right to have what the more affluent or successful have and that just because they are citizens. Woops! It now includes those foreign born that want to take up residence without fulfilling the laws of citizenship that were set in motion from the start of this country. But y'all just wanted an opinion and here it is I'm starting a book! Y'all get where I'm coming from though and you've heard it all before.
Quote from: LIAMD on December 16, 2013, 06:57:54 PM
Why do people have such a difficult time with the word Republic anyway??
Liberals believe the word should be preceded by "People's"......
Quote from: The Boo Man... on December 16, 2013, 08:40:57 PM
Genghis Khan's writings on the failings of Keynesian Economics are well known....
He also said this.....
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages12.fotki.com%2Fv20%2Fphotos%2F1%2F1595431%2F8259098%2Fgorepunishment274x150vi-vi.png&hash=15348bde169012a453d1233f3ad906844ffe00be)
Quote from: Nautical Underpants on December 15, 2013, 11:20:43 PM
We keep hearing "Conservatives" drone on that we need to tread softly on the electorate because although these "conservatives" believe in conservative policies they believe we need "stealth candidates" to get elected. In other words they are are conservatives but prefer to run RINOS because anything else is radical 2010 not withstanding.
So, What is the definition of a a radical righty? Not strategy, not politics but core beliefs. What are the core beliefs of the radical right.
To answer your question.
Our Founders were the Radical Right of their day, there was no Right to the Right of them, so any variation in their ideals, their goals, would have to be leftist in nature.
Which brings us to today, as for the values they've instilled on the Nation, the laws they created, the values we once held dear, it was the left that has been the very source of this corruption.
It only takes a bit of commonsense to see that there is no such animal as radical Right, only
radical leftism.
Quote from: Solar on December 17, 2013, 06:28:38 AM
To answer your question.
Our Founders were the Radical Right of their day, there was no Right to the Right of them, so any variation in their ideals, their goals, would have to be leftist in nature.
Which brings us to today, as for the values they've instilled on the Nation, the laws they created, the values we once held dear, it was the left that has been the very source of this corruption.
It only takes a bit of commonsense to see that there is no such animal as radical Right, only radical leftism.
Webster's defines ultra-conservatives as reactionary, and specifically states they are the antonym (reverse) of "radical."
(Edited for brevity, link for the purists.....)Quote
reactionary
[ree-ak-shuh-ner-ee] adjective, noun, plural reactionaries.
adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, especially extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change.
noun
2.
a reactionary person.
Synonyms
1, 2. ultraconservative.
Antonyms
1, 2. radical.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reactionary?s=t&path=/ (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reactionary?s=t&path=/)
Yeah, we're really dangerous wanting to CONSERVE the things that are good about our way of life! We're really villains for opposing change for change's sake.
Quote from: quiller on December 17, 2013, 06:45:18 AM
Webster's defines ultra-conservatives as reactionary, and specifically states they are the antonym (reverse) of "radical." (Edited for brevity, link for the purists.....)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reactionary?s=t&path=/ (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reactionary?s=t&path=/)
Yeah, we're really dangerous wanting to CONSERVE the things that are good about our way of life! We're really villains for opposing change for change's sake.
And there you have it, anything Right of Right, is a reactionary, a person unwilling to make change, so obviously and change that took place, could only have come from the left.
So libs, who are the real Radicals in the country?
Quote from: Solar on December 17, 2013, 06:54:58 AM
And there you have it, anything Right of Right, is a reactionary, a person unwilling to make change, so obviously and change that took place, could only have come from the left.
So libs, who are the real Radicals in the country?
Would you insist on so much change if only YOU were paying for it?
Quote from: quiller on December 17, 2013, 08:32:50 AM
Would you insist on so much change if only YOU were paying for it?
Teach a man to fish, and he'll feed himself, give a man another mans fish, and he'll vote for you.
What amuses me about the true hard left is how easy it is to live among them as conservatives --- if you only shut up about politics when they cannot shut up about the Tea Party that isn't even an organized Tea Party and about Sarah Palin who's not running for anything.
They fixate on every false cause imaginable, this time around from global warming fanatics refusing to accept the science is far from settled. They hate Ann Coulter and balanced budgets --- and think we're all National Socialist Party style Nazis....
It's all too easy to laugh at our left.
Quote from: Solar on December 17, 2013, 06:28:38 AM
To answer your question.
Our Founders were the Radical Right of their day, there was no Right to the Right of them, so any variation in their ideals, their goals, would have to be leftist in nature.
Which brings us to today, as for the values they've instilled on the Nation, the laws they created, the values we once held dear, it was the left that has been the very source of this corruption.
It only takes a bit of commonsense to see that there is no such animal as radical Right, only radical leftism.
To be sure, Solar, the anti-Federalists were to the right of the Constitution. As were the Quakers. As were the Articles of Confederation. Frankly, the Constitution was a move to the left.
As you may know already, a big debate - probably the biggest debate - between the anti-Federalists and the Federalists was between confederation and consolidation. The Federalists won that debate, and Americans began to wonder if they were straying from the principles of the Revolution. The Constitution also created uniformity among the states, such as with interstate commerce and tender laws. Certainly, some move to the left was necessary; even the anti-Federalists thought the states needed a revised, stronger Articles (the Articles didn't provide for the federal government's payment of debts, for example).
In short, the Revolutionary Era was one of rapid political change in America. In the 1760s, the Americans were witnessing a steady consumption of liberties in England. Even in the few short decades after the Glorious Revolution, the English government was becoming intrusive, and Americans protested in anticipation of the tyranny that the Parliament and Crown would surely visit upon them. So in the 1770s, they began establishing their own legislatures, dismissing the Parliament, and later declared independence, dismissing the king. They then created an instrument that would loosely unite them, something like with the EU today, but they feared licentiousness; this instrument was too far to the right. So, in the 1780s, the Americans created a strong central government (strong by the conventions of the day) with a new constitution.
On one hand, I wonder if we might not have been better off with a revised Articles, which would have maintained a confederation of thirteen sovereign republics, or with the new constitution, which provides for cohesion among the states and some innovations (such as with a senate being chosen not by an aristocracy but by the states (actually, an innovation of the state of Connecticut)). I'm happy with the Constitution, and proud to be an American, but some clauses in the Constitution are vague. You and I know what they mean, and so did the people of the 18th century, but yet they were vague enough for Tories, Democrats, and other liberals to start reinterpreting.
If not the Constitution itself being a little farther to the right, maybe the verbiage could have been more tightly crafted, so as not to give progressivism a handle on our liberties.
Quote from: norwegen on December 17, 2013, 09:03:14 AM
To be sure, Solar, the anti-Federalists were to the right of the Constitution. As were the Quakers. As were the Articles of Confederation. Frankly, the Constitution was a move to the left.
As you may know already, a big debate - probably the biggest debate - between the anti-Federalists and the Federalists was between confederation and consolidation. The Federalists won that debate, and Americans began to wonder if they were straying from the principles of the Revolution. The Constitution also created uniformity among the states, such as with interstate commerce and tender laws. Certainly, some move to the left was necessary; even the anti-Federalists thought the states needed a revised, stronger Articles (the Articles didn't provide for the federal government's payment of debts, for example).
In short, the Revolutionary Era was one of rapid political change in America. In the 1760s, the Americans were witnessing a steady consumption of liberties in England. Even in the few short decades after the Glorious Revolution, the English government was becoming intrusive, and Americans protested in anticipation of the tyranny that the Parliament and Crown would surely visit upon them. So in the 1770s, they began establishing their own legislatures, dismissing the Parliament, and later declared independence, dismissing the king. They then created an instrument that would loosely unite them, something like with the EU today, but they feared licentiousness; this instrument was too far to the right. So, in the 1780s, the Americans created a strong central government (strong by the conventions of the day) with a new constitution.
On one hand, I wonder if we might not have been better off with a revised Articles, which would have maintained a confederation of thirteen sovereign republics, or with the new constitution, which provides for cohesion among the states and some innovations (such as with a senate being chosen not by an aristocracy but by the states (actually, an innovation of the state of Connecticut)). I'm happy with the Constitution, and proud to be an American, but some clauses in the Constitution are vague. You and I know what they mean, and so did the people of the 18th century, but yet they were vague enough for Tories, Democrats, and other liberals to start reinterpreting.
If not the Constitution itself being a little farther to the right, maybe the verbiage could have been more tightly crafted, so as not to give progressivism a handle on our liberties.
True, had it not been for the Anti federalists, we would not have a Bill of Rights, and without a Bill of Rights, we would probably not have a country even remotely resembling what our Founders had intended.
Quote from: Solar on December 17, 2013, 09:10:45 AM
True, had it not been for the Anti federalists, we would not have a Bill of Rights, and without a Bill of Rights, we would probably not have a country even remotely resembling what our Founders had intended.
A Bill of Rights was implied (a Federalist position), but true enough, its omission would certainly have been another cause for liberal reinterpretation.
Our Founders were very "Radical Right" and you better be glad they were. == "The Philadelphia Convention members finalized the Constitution and submitted it to the states for ratification on September 28, 1787. The public, expecting a revised version of the Articles of Confederation, was shocked by this new document. The Philadelphia Convention had been a very private affair, and only the individuals inside the meeting room were aware of the drastic changes that were taking place. At times during the convention, the windows were boarded over to ensure the framers' privacy. As a result, the public, assuming that the convention's purpose was to revise the existing Articles of Confederation, was taken aback by the innovative Constitution."
http://www.apstudynotes.org/us-history/topics/federalists-versus-antifederalists-/ (http://www.apstudynotes.org/us-history/topics/federalists-versus-antifederalists-/) The whole article is very enlightening and is worth the read.
Quote from: bigmck on December 17, 2013, 03:28:38 PM
Our Founders were very "Radical Right" and you better be glad they were.
I really don't think the framers were radical right, bigmck. Your link even says that the government the new constitution created was a strong one.
Against the backdrop of American history, the Constitution was not that far to the right. It was closer to the center. The people of the late 18th century, ultimately, were centrist.
To the right of the Constitution is licentiousness, and eventually anarchy. Americans did not trust the Articles in its current iteration to spare them from that fate. To the left of the Constitution is liberalism (Toryism, democracy, socialism), another dreadful prospect. America's Constitutional Republicanism was poised beautifully to spare Americans from the oppression of either the left or the right.
Conservative advocacy of a restoration of first principles is not radical; conservatives just want to return to that centrist position. When liberals call them
extremists and
radicals for their advocacy, I can only laugh at their ignorance on the one hand. On the other hand, I view them with disgust at this sneaky way they continue to try to control the language and push our country ever farther to the left.
Conservatives and the tea party are radical like a dying host fighting off parasites is radical... Because the MSM and our government schools have brainwashed so many people with liberalism and we promote some pro-American normalcy, that doesn't mean we're radical. We're just normal.
Quote from: taxed on December 17, 2013, 04:20:54 PM
Conservatives and the tea party are radical like a dying host fighting off parasites is radical... Because the MSM and our government schools have brainwashed so many people with liberalism and we promote some pro-American normalcy, that doesn't mean we're radical. We're just normal.
Well-said, taxed.
I would say the radical right is either: someone who believes there should be no regulations, no taxes, and the role of the government should be microscopic like the libertarian party; or it's someone like Alex Jones, who believes in most of what conservatives believe, but has a lot of conspiracy theories and is basically geared up for a civil war.
But the way the mainstream media talks, all conservatives are radicals apparently. I guess the idea that you can't spend money you don't have is radical. Go figure :P
Quote from: grace_note on December 17, 2013, 11:03:28 PM
I would say the radical right is either: someone who believes there should be no regulations, no taxes, and the role of the government should be microscopic like the libertarian party; or it's someone like Alex Jones, who believes in most of what conservatives believe, but has a lot of conspiracy theories and is basically geared up for a civil war.
But the way the mainstream media talks, all conservatives are radicals apparently. I guess the idea that you can't spend money you don't have is radical. Go figure :P
I would never consider distrusting a faceless govt as radical, in fact healthy skepticism is what got us thus far without intrusion.
Quote from: Nautical Underpants on December 15, 2013, 11:20:43 PM
So, What is the definition of a a radical righty? Not strategy, not politics but core beliefs. What are the core beliefs of the radical right.
Anything the left does not believe in.
Quote from: grace_note on December 17, 2013, 11:03:28 PM
I would say the radical right is either: someone who believes there should be no regulations, no taxes, and the role of the government should be microscopic like the libertarian party; or it's someone like Alex Jones, who believes in most of what conservatives believe, but has a lot of conspiracy theories and is basically geared up for a civil war.
But the way the mainstream media talks, all conservatives are radicals apparently. I guess the idea that you can't spend money you don't have is radical. Go figure :P
Who is in favor of no regulations? Please post a link or retract this liberal fallacy....
Personally I don't subscribe to the left, right-wing labels. These were originally European constructs to label communists and fascists respectively. American Progressives adopted the convention to muddy the waters since their primary tactic is obfuscation. I interpret every ism of "pure" democracy and anti-capitalism as left of the US constitution, way left. The Overton window in America has shifted so far left that mainstream Americans have little true representation in a society that they are predominately meat and backbone of. Average Joe (full time job, pro life heterosexual nuclear family unit, Christian) is lampooned in entertainment and news media, targeted for punishment and destruction by the Democrat Party, and largely ignored by at least one third of the Republican Party. To the left, Average Joe is radical right, and a constitutionalist like many Tea Party members are terrorists to the left. It's a despicable developement.
Quote from: taxed on December 18, 2013, 09:14:06 AM
Who is in favor of no regulations? Please post a link or retract this liberal fallacy....
Calm down, dude, I'm on your side lol. I never said anyone is in favor of no regulations.
Quote from: Nautical Underpants on December 15, 2013, 11:20:43 PM
We keep hearing "Conservatives" drone on that we need to tread softly on the electorate because although these "conservatives" believe in conservative policies they believe we need "stealth candidates" to get elected. In other words they are are conservatives but prefer to run RINOS because anything else is radical 2010 not withstanding.
So, What is the definition of a a radical righty? Not strategy, not politics but core beliefs. What are the core beliefs of the radical right.
POWER AND CONTROL shared ONLY by a select 'selected' minority. PUNITIVE
white males (and the occasional female who is 'controllable') who want to
CONTROL everything--money, policy, politics, sex/women, children and ultimately the world.
Quote from: cpicturetaker12 on December 18, 2013, 10:43:48 AM
POWER AND CONTROL shared ONLY by a select 'selected' minority. PUNITIVE white males (and the occasional female who is 'controllable') who want to CONTROL everything--money, policy, politics, sex/women, children and ultimately the world.
Well that nails down the Progressive elite, but what about the so-called radical right. There is no such thing, which has already been said. The American cultural POV has been so skewed by the left that your average mainstream American (full time job, shops at Wal-Mart, probably goes to church, maybe votes Republican, most likely member of heterosexual nuclear family unit, probably pro-life) has become radical from a left-wing POV.
Quote from: grace_note on December 18, 2013, 10:04:48 AM
Calm down, dude, I'm on your side lol. I never said anyone is in favor of no regulations.
I'm calm, just extremely focused. Why would you write it if anyone is in favor of it?
Quote from: taxed on December 18, 2013, 12:07:11 PM
I'm calm, just extremely focused. Why would you write it if anyone is in favor of it?
Oh good. Use some of that focus to re-read what I wrote, carefully this time. The reason I wrote it is because the question is "What is the radical right?", not "What is the radical right? But only answer if you believe that such a radical right exists."
Quote from: cpicturetaker12 on December 18, 2013, 10:43:48 AM
POWER AND CONTROL shared ONLY by a select 'selected' minority. PUNITIVE white males (and the occasional female who is 'controllable') who want to CONTROL everything--money, policy, politics, sex/women, children and ultimately the world.
Yea, so why are you still on this site? Go find one of your left wing sites and bother them.
Quote from: bigmck on December 18, 2013, 12:59:46 PM
Yea, so why are you still on this site? Go find one of your left wing sites and bother them.
I am pretty sure he gets his "fixes" from those sites to share with us.
Quote from: bigmck on December 18, 2013, 12:59:46 PM
Yea, so why are you still on this site? Go find one of your left wing sites and bother them.
I, for one, am glad there are liberals here for us to tell them how wrong they are :)
Quote from: grace_note on December 18, 2013, 12:18:31 PM
Oh good. Use some of that focus to re-read what I wrote, carefully this time. The reason I wrote it is because the question is "What is the radical right?", not "What is the radical right? But only answer if you believe that such a radical right exists."
You are correct. My apologies.
Quote from: LIAMD on December 16, 2013, 06:57:54 PM
Why do people have such a difficult time with the word Republic anyway??
Because teachers convincingly present a better case for what we aren't, and mustn't be.
Quote from: cpicturetaker12 on December 18, 2013, 10:43:48 AM
POWER AND CONTROL shared ONLY by a select 'selected' minority. PUNITIVE white males (and the occasional female who is 'controllable') who want to CONTROL everything--money, policy, politics, sex/women, children and ultimately the world.
I thought they'd cornered and tranquilized you by now, sonny.
Who selects the selected minority? Themselves? By definition is that not just a mob?
Who said punitive, or white males? And why must any woman in agreement be 'controllable,' as if mere agreement isn't enough or something.
Control children? You must mean fathers who stick around to be parents. The left's a whole lot short on those guys, aren't they, kid?