Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

VXerick · May 22, 2005, 12:42 pm

I'm not a Republican. But I am a conservative. I'm registered Independent but I usually vote for the Republican candidates. There are a few exceptions, like my one RINO Senator (Specter).

I have been known to vote for a Democrat in a local election. Someone I know personally running to sit on the school board - stuff like that. Otherwise, Democrats (more precisely, liberals) and me are like oil and water, we never mix.

So, if you change the name to the Republicans, it won't work for me. The Conservatives is just fine.

Mr.Vicchio · May 22, 2005, 07:41 pm

I have voted for Democrats on a local level myself. (Texas Southern Dems in the Zell Miller mold)

Capitalist Pig · May 22, 2005, 08:22 pm

I think the conservative name is fine, but as Mr.Vicchio has pointed out -- and as it is with any political ideology -- there are varying degrees of conservatism. The question is, what responsibilities does a conservative group have on this forum, and where do we draw the line? And should we even draw a line?

I would like for the conservative group to, of course, promote the best possible image of conservatism to the rest of the forum. This should be exemplified not just in our debates and our attitudes, but also in how we run our own backyard. But again, this raises serious issues, as my opinion of what the best possible image of conservatism may differ slightly or in whole from another's.

It seems this group tends to favor a moderate conservative image, and that's fine. I would probably quit to avoid association with a bunch of radicals.

But a discussion of radicalism and how far we should take it is probably in order.

VXerick · May 23, 2005, 02:10 pm

What about neo-conservatives? How do you see them? I equate them to the RINOs, who are not really very conservative at all, except perhaps a few underlying conservative themes, such as abortion, gay marriage or gun ownership.

Mr.Vicchio · May 23, 2005, 05:23 pm

Quote:

Quote by: VXerick

What about neo-conservatives? How do you see them? I equate them to the RINOs, who are not really very conservative at all, except perhaps a few underlying conservative themes, such as abortion, gay marriage or gun ownership.

Neo-Con's ARE conservatives too, they just happen to be leading the entire movement, maybe not as far right as some would like, but I would take a "neo-con" of a Rhino anyday of the week.

Capitalist Pig · May 23, 2005, 09:02 pm

I certaintly wouldn't. I'm with VXerick in thinking of neocons are RINOs. Their actions violate some of the principles of conservative philosophy. They do not at all champion a smaller government, nor are they too worried about spending. They seem perfectly content with the little welfare state that they -- together with the Democrats -- have helped propagate. Unfortunately, this definition renders many of the Republican Party's present figureheads neocons, and thus RINOs by default. It is for reasons such as this that I do not align myself with the Republican Party. It's suffering from cognitive dissonance. I have not, however, lost all hope in it, or in the grassroots supporters.

VXerick · May 23, 2005, 10:15 pm

I don't know. After that compromise the RINO's and Democrats came up with earlier this evening, I'm thinking the Democrats have a majority in the Senate because they can depend on those 7 so-called Republicans to stand against the rest of their party.

I'm thoroughly disgusted. It's times like this that I swear that I'll never vote for another Republican. That would mean either I don't vote at all or I find another party.

Agent007 · Jun 11, 2005, 08:05 pm

All the members of this group should share the political ideology of conservatism (or even populism, since both support the government upholding traditional values but the former does not support government action in ensuring the economic welfare of citizens, while the latter does). As obvious as this may seem, every applicant's general political "picture" should be viewed before they are allowed to join the group. This way, there will not be a liberal "person" spying on us. Concerning the conservatism/populism issue, perhaps I would be more comfortable changing the forum name to "The Traditionalists" or even "The Reactionaries" (this may not be a correct designation, since our opposition would then be radicals, which they most probably are not)

caspian88 · Jun 11, 2005, 08:49 pm

Agent, this leads us to the interesting problem of how you mean "conservative." If you mean "conservative" so that it applies to certain issues like abortion, interventionalist foreign policy and so on, I'm sure at least more than myself here doesn't fit. If you mean "conservative" as in small government with little to no interference with personal matters, then I'm fine, but everyone else doesn't quite fit (in my view).

May 22, 2005, 07:41 pm	#22 (permalink) (top)
Mr.Vicchio Navy Veteran Location: Texas Posts: 6,031	I have voted for Democrats on a local level myself. (Texas Southern Dems in the Zell Miller mold) Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is still being challenged to this day, but by consensus Global Warming is a fact... that's REAL science at work, why didn't Albert just go that route?

May 22, 2005, 08:22 pm	#23 (permalink) (top)
Capitalist Pig Market Anarchist Location: United States Posts: 650	I think the conservative name is fine, but as Mr.Vicchio has pointed out -- and as it is with any political ideology -- there are varying degrees of conservatism. The question is, what responsibilities does a conservative group have on this forum, and where do we draw the line? And should we even draw a line? I would like for the conservative group to, of course, promote the best possible image of conservatism to the rest of the forum. This should be exemplified not just in our debates and our attitudes, but also in how we run our own backyard. But again, this raises serious issues, as my opinion of what the best possible image of conservatism may differ slightly or in whole from another's. It seems this group tends to favor a moderate conservative image, and that's fine. I would probably quit to avoid association with a bunch of radicals. But a discussion of radicalism and how far we should take it is probably in order. Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito, qua tua te Fortuna sinet. Last edited by Capitalist Pig; May 22, 2005 at 08:27 pm. Reason: Typo

May 23, 2005, 09:02 pm	#26 (permalink) (top)
Capitalist Pig Market Anarchist Location: United States Posts: 650	I certaintly wouldn't. I'm with VXerick in thinking of neocons are RINOs. Their actions violate some of the principles of conservative philosophy. They do not at all champion a smaller government, nor are they too worried about spending. They seem perfectly content with the little welfare state that they -- together with the Democrats -- have helped propagate. Unfortunately, this definition renders many of the Republican Party's present figureheads neocons, and thus RINOs by default. It is for reasons such as this that I do not align myself with the Republican Party. It's suffering from cognitive dissonance. I have not, however, lost all hope in it, or in the grassroots supporters. Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito, qua tua te Fortuna sinet.

Jun 11, 2005, 08:05 pm	#28 (permalink) (top)
Agent007 BANNED Posts: 302	All the members of this group should share the political ideology of conservatism (or even populism, since both support the government upholding traditional values but the former does not support government action in ensuring the economic welfare of citizens, while the latter does). As obvious as this may seem, every applicant's general political "picture" should be viewed before they are allowed to join the group. This way, there will not be a liberal "person" spying on us. Concerning the conservatism/populism issue, perhaps I would be more comfortable changing the forum name to "The Traditionalists" or even "The Reactionaries" (this may not be a correct designation, since our opposition would then be radicals, which they most probably are not) Last edited by Agent007; Jun 11, 2005 at 08:09 pm.

May 22, 2005, 12:42 pm	#21 (permalink) (top)
VXerick Igneous Magma Location: PA Posts: 328	I'm not a Republican. But I am a conservative. I'm registered Independent but I usually vote for the Republican candidates. There are a few exceptions, like my one RINO Senator (Specter). I have been known to vote for a Democrat in a local election. Someone I know personally running to sit on the school board - stuff like that. Otherwise, Democrats (more precisely, liberals) and me are like oil and water, we never mix. So, if you change the name to the Republicans, it won't work for me. The Conservatives is just fine.

May 23, 2005, 02:10 pm	#24 (permalink) (top)
VXerick Igneous Magma Location: PA Posts: 328	What about neo-conservatives? How do you see them? I equate them to the RINOs, who are not really very conservative at all, except perhaps a few underlying conservative themes, such as abortion, gay marriage or gun ownership.

May 23, 2005, 10:15 pm	#27 (permalink) (top)
VXerick Igneous Magma Location: PA Posts: 328	I don't know. After that compromise the RINO's and Democrats came up with earlier this evening, I'm thinking the Democrats have a majority in the Senate because they can depend on those 7 so-called Republicans to stand against the rest of their party. I'm thoroughly disgusted. It's times like this that I swear that I'll never vote for another Republican. That would mean either I don't vote at all or I find another party.

Jun 11, 2005, 08:49 pm	#29 (permalink) (top)
caspian88 Molten Ash Posts: 85	Agent, this leads us to the interesting problem of how you mean "conservative." If you mean "conservative" so that it applies to certain issues like abortion, interventionalist foreign policy and so on, I'm sure at least more than myself here doesn't fit. If you mean "conservative" as in small government with little to no interference with personal matters, then I'm fine, but everyone else doesn't quite fit (in my view).