What is a Liberal?
The Conservative POV
- Thread starter MASTERBAKER
- Start date
What is a Liberal?
Re: What is a Conservative? What is a Liberal?
So you telling me that Conservatives can't have new ideas? Liberals always have new ideas? Really?
Is it that clear cut, because I swore most of the racism has came from the "liberal" side this election season.
Oh wait, I have no credibility since my opinion is different from everyone else.
So you telling me that Conservatives can't have new ideas? Liberals always have new ideas? Really?
Is it that clear cut, because I swore most of the racism has came from the "liberal" side this election season.
Oh wait, I have no credibility since my opinion is different from everyone else.
Conservative Censorship/Democracy
source: Lynchburg News Advance
Liberty University Rejects Democratic Club On "Moral" Grounds
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe held a conference call with reporters this morning.
Liberty University’s Democratic party club president Brian Diaz and the club’s staff adviser, Maria Childress, answered questions from reporters throughout the state during the call.
Many of the questions focused on the issue of censorship, and McAuliffe responded by saying he favors free speech and including more people in the civic process.
Earlier:
Liberty University has revoked its recognition of the campus Democratic Party club, saying “we are unable to lend support to a club whose parent organization stands against the moral principles held by” the university.
“It kind of happened out of nowhere,” said Brian Diaz, president of LU’s student Democratic Party organization, which LU formally recognized in October.
Diaz said he was notified of the school’s decision May 15 in an e-mail from Mark Hine, vice president of student affairs.
According to the e-mail, the club must stop using the university’s name, holding meetings on campus, or advertising events. Violators could incur one or more reprimands under the school’s Liberty Way conduct code, and anyone who accumulates 30 reprimands is subject to expulsion.
Hine said late Thursday that the university could not sanction an official club that supported Democratic candidates.
“We are in no way attempting to stifle free speech.”
Hine said the university had recently completed a policy that would govern clubs and organizations on campus.
“We looked at each club and organization to determine where it stood and unfortunately this one kind of got in the sights of policy, if you will,” he said.
Hine’s e-mail mentioned that he had expressed a concern to Diaz about the national Democratic Party’s platform during a meeting earlier in the semester.
Last fall, Diaz said, Hine had complimented the club for being a faith-based organization working within the Democratic Party.
Jan Dervish, secretary of the club, and Maria Childress, its staff adviser, said they met with Hine after the revocation and asked for a further explanation.
“He said it wasn’t us. It was the national Democratic Party,” which the campus club’s constitution supports, Dervish said. The campus club also opposes abortion and supports the traditional view of marriage, Dervish said.
“His bottom line was, ‘You can’t be a Democrat and be a Christian and be a university representative,’” Childress said.
Hine denied saying that.
Part of Hine’s e-mail said, “The Democratic Party platform is contrary to the mission of Liberty University and to Christian doctrine (supports abortion, federal funding of abortion, advocates repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, promotes the “LGBT” agenda, hate crimes, which include sexual orientation and gender identity, socialism, etc.)” LGBT refers to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
Mark Lawrence, chairman of the citywide Lynchburg Democratic Party, called The News & Advance Thursday after he learned about the revocation.
“My issue with this is the statement that the Democratic Party platform is contrary to the mission of Liberty University and to Christian doctrine,” Lawrence said. “They are essentially saying, ‘you cannot be a Christian and a Democrat.’”
Lawrence said he doesn’t personally support every plank in the party’s platform, and many Democrats also have their own differences with the document, which is assembled every four years for the national convention.
Hine’s e-mail said, “The candidates this club supports uphold the platform and implement it. The candidates supported are directly contrary to the mission of Liberty University.”
The goals of the Democratic Party and LU “run in opposite directions,” the e-mail said.
LU has had a College Republicans club for several years.
Claire Ayendi, who was chairman of the Republican club last year and graduated this spring, said she didn’t regard the university’s disbanding of the Democratic group as a political act.
“I think it’s more like a moral issue,” Ayendi said. “Letting a club like that exist goes against what the school is founded on,” she said.
Democratic Party club adviser Childress, an administrative assistant in the university’s honors program, said she sees her role as supporting students, especially their academic status.
“I love and support the university,” said Childress, who earned a bachelor’s degree in elementary education from LU in 2004. “But my support is to the students as well. My number one goal is protecting them,” she said.
Dervish said he asked Hine whether LU would let him work off campus in Democratic Party activities. Dervish said Hine told him and Childress that students’ activities outside the school were not affected by the university’s decision to revoke the club’s recognition.
In a written statement sent to The News & Advance Thursday night, Hine said, “Among other things, Liberty University stands for the sanctity of human life. The loss of human life through abortion is a great tragedy and we cannot remain silent when the political policies or politicians themselves promote the destruction of innocent human life.
“While those who are members of the LU Democratic Club are well intentioned and honorable, the platform and policies of the national Democratic Party and the candidates supported by that party, and thus the student organization itself, are inconsistent with the mission of the University.”
source: Lynchburg News Advance
Liberty University Rejects Democratic Club On "Moral" Grounds
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe held a conference call with reporters this morning.
Liberty University’s Democratic party club president Brian Diaz and the club’s staff adviser, Maria Childress, answered questions from reporters throughout the state during the call.
Many of the questions focused on the issue of censorship, and McAuliffe responded by saying he favors free speech and including more people in the civic process.
Earlier:
Liberty University has revoked its recognition of the campus Democratic Party club, saying “we are unable to lend support to a club whose parent organization stands against the moral principles held by” the university.
“It kind of happened out of nowhere,” said Brian Diaz, president of LU’s student Democratic Party organization, which LU formally recognized in October.
Diaz said he was notified of the school’s decision May 15 in an e-mail from Mark Hine, vice president of student affairs.
According to the e-mail, the club must stop using the university’s name, holding meetings on campus, or advertising events. Violators could incur one or more reprimands under the school’s Liberty Way conduct code, and anyone who accumulates 30 reprimands is subject to expulsion.
Hine said late Thursday that the university could not sanction an official club that supported Democratic candidates.
“We are in no way attempting to stifle free speech.”
Hine said the university had recently completed a policy that would govern clubs and organizations on campus.
“We looked at each club and organization to determine where it stood and unfortunately this one kind of got in the sights of policy, if you will,” he said.
Hine’s e-mail mentioned that he had expressed a concern to Diaz about the national Democratic Party’s platform during a meeting earlier in the semester.
Last fall, Diaz said, Hine had complimented the club for being a faith-based organization working within the Democratic Party.
Jan Dervish, secretary of the club, and Maria Childress, its staff adviser, said they met with Hine after the revocation and asked for a further explanation.
“He said it wasn’t us. It was the national Democratic Party,” which the campus club’s constitution supports, Dervish said. The campus club also opposes abortion and supports the traditional view of marriage, Dervish said.
“His bottom line was, ‘You can’t be a Democrat and be a Christian and be a university representative,’” Childress said.
Hine denied saying that.
Part of Hine’s e-mail said, “The Democratic Party platform is contrary to the mission of Liberty University and to Christian doctrine (supports abortion, federal funding of abortion, advocates repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, promotes the “LGBT” agenda, hate crimes, which include sexual orientation and gender identity, socialism, etc.)” LGBT refers to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
Mark Lawrence, chairman of the citywide Lynchburg Democratic Party, called The News & Advance Thursday after he learned about the revocation.
“My issue with this is the statement that the Democratic Party platform is contrary to the mission of Liberty University and to Christian doctrine,” Lawrence said. “They are essentially saying, ‘you cannot be a Christian and a Democrat.’”
Lawrence said he doesn’t personally support every plank in the party’s platform, and many Democrats also have their own differences with the document, which is assembled every four years for the national convention.
Hine’s e-mail said, “The candidates this club supports uphold the platform and implement it. The candidates supported are directly contrary to the mission of Liberty University.”
The goals of the Democratic Party and LU “run in opposite directions,” the e-mail said.
LU has had a College Republicans club for several years.
Claire Ayendi, who was chairman of the Republican club last year and graduated this spring, said she didn’t regard the university’s disbanding of the Democratic group as a political act.
“I think it’s more like a moral issue,” Ayendi said. “Letting a club like that exist goes against what the school is founded on,” she said.
Democratic Party club adviser Childress, an administrative assistant in the university’s honors program, said she sees her role as supporting students, especially their academic status.
“I love and support the university,” said Childress, who earned a bachelor’s degree in elementary education from LU in 2004. “But my support is to the students as well. My number one goal is protecting them,” she said.
Dervish said he asked Hine whether LU would let him work off campus in Democratic Party activities. Dervish said Hine told him and Childress that students’ activities outside the school were not affected by the university’s decision to revoke the club’s recognition.
In a written statement sent to The News & Advance Thursday night, Hine said, “Among other things, Liberty University stands for the sanctity of human life. The loss of human life through abortion is a great tragedy and we cannot remain silent when the political policies or politicians themselves promote the destruction of innocent human life.
“While those who are members of the LU Democratic Club are well intentioned and honorable, the platform and policies of the national Democratic Party and the candidates supported by that party, and thus the student organization itself, are inconsistent with the mission of the University.”
Re: Conservative Censorship/Democracy
Msnbc CHECK
CNN CHECK
Huffington Post CHECK
New York Times CHECK
No democratic club at a small college= TOTAL OUTRAGE
Seriously?
Msnbc CHECK
CNN CHECK
Huffington Post CHECK
New York Times CHECK
No democratic club at a small college= TOTAL OUTRAGE
Seriously?
Re: Conservative Censorship/Democracy
As long as there's the FCC, NSA, CIA, FBI, DEA, ATF, DHS, and electoral college there can be no such thing as a democracy in this country
As long as there's the FCC, NSA, CIA, FBI, DEA, ATF, DHS, and electoral college there can be no such thing as a democracy in this country
Re: Conservative Censorship/Democracy
True democracy do not work.
A democracy within a republic DO.
True democracy do not work.
A democracy within a republic DO.
Re: What is a Conservative? What is a Liberal?
I'm not interested in protecting either side, but could you please post the facts that support your opinion above.
QueEx
I'm not interested in protecting either side, but could you please post the facts that support your opinion above.
QueEx
Re: What is a Conservative? What is a Liberal?
The Point is MOST DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK THEY ARE yet they go around saying they are LIBS and CONS.
Check out this dude... One of MICHAEL STEELS MINIONS... in the HEEZEY..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJpyEbxzEe8
The Point is MOST DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK THEY ARE yet they go around saying they are LIBS and CONS.
Check out this dude... One of MICHAEL STEELS MINIONS... in the HEEZEY..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJpyEbxzEe8
What are some conservative alternatives to liberal facts?
Sorry for the horrible title
But what I'm really asking for is alternative websites to those like MediaMatters.com and others. It seems that there aren't any with a conservative pov...
can you fill me in on a few?
Sorry for the horrible title
But what I'm really asking for is alternative websites to those like MediaMatters.com and others. It seems that there aren't any with a conservative pov...
can you fill me in on a few?
Re: What are some conservative alternatives to liberal facts?
depends on what you deem are "facts"
interesting articles on http://www.campaignforliberty.com/
depends on what you deem are "facts"
interesting articles on http://www.campaignforliberty.com/
Re: What are some conservative alternatives to liberal facts?
look up the heritage foundation
look up the heritage foundation
For true conservative victory, simply voting Republican won't do
Barack Obama is the most socialist president in American history. Before Obama, George W. Bush was the most socialist president in American history. Before Dubya, it was Bill Clinton, then Bush Sr., Reagan, and so on. Each successive administration, by and large, has presided over a federal government that has assumed more power and spent more money than the last.
And the same will be true in 2012 or 2016 if America elects just any old establishment Republican. Yet, the continuous, everyday narrative being put out by the GOP and talk radio is that it is of the utmost importance for conservatives to unite in order to defeat the Democrats.
About President Obama, Rush Limbaugh warns, "He wants to destroy capitalism. He wants to establish a very powerful socialist government, authoritarian." Bombast aside, Rush is not off the mark. The problem is the same criticism could be leveled against George W. Bush, who "abandoned free-market principles to save the free market system" with the historically unprecedented, socialist TARP bailout and whose administration increased executive power to what many considered an extreme, authoritarian degree.
Fear mongering to keep Republican voters in the fold is nothing new. Before Obama, it was Bill Clinton who was going to destroy America, or as Limbaugh put it in his 1993 book, See I Told You So: "Get ready, folks, for the biggest confiscation of your money ever by the government ... Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson look like pikers compared to this guy." In 2007, McClatchy News Service reported that Bush had spent more than any president since LBJ, making Clinton look like a piker. In the '90s, Rush warned against Clinton's "radical agenda" and "extreme Leftist blueprint," yet while "Slick Willie" was certainly every bit the statist Rush portrayed, comparatively, he was actually more fiscally conservative than Bush.
Liberals who accuse conservatives of being selective in their anti-government outrage have a valid point. Consider this scenario: What if there had never been a President George W. Bush and we went straight from Clinton to electing Obama in 2000? Now imagine Obama had governed exactly as Bush had -- starting the Iraq war, implementing the Patriot Act, doubling the national debt, expanding Medicare, enacting No Child Left Behind, pushing through TARP, the whole bit. How would Rush and the GOP have reacted? Would they have said that Obama was "destroying capitalism" or trying "to establish a very powerful socialist government?" Of course they would.
Conservatives who continue to make the case that Obama is worse than Bush are right, but the fact that Rush and like-minded pundits and politicians are unable to find fault with the last socialist Republican president is a pretty good indication as to what they'll tolerate from the next one.
Rush's, and much of talk radio's, preferred GOP candidate in 2008 was Mitt Romney, whose record as the governor of Massachusetts wasn't exactly conservative. Romney's current politics, as outlined in his new book, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, differs from Obama's primarily in their priorities and not on the issues of out-of-control federal spending or the massive growth of government. Imagine if Romney had been elected in 2008 and pursued Obama's exact agenda, including national healthcare. This scenario actually isn't much of a stretch considering that Obamacare is based on Romneycare, the Bay State's current government healthcare plan. Would Rush and his Republican friends defend Romney's Obama-style agenda? If the last decade was any indication, they would.
Today, the popular Tea Party movement represents the first sign of conservative sanity in some time, due to their possible willingness to be independent of the Republican Party, something GOP politicians and their talk radio spokesman already fear. Reviewing Sean Hannity's new book Conservative Victory, the City Paper's Chris Haire writes, "Hannity has nothing but disdain for the Tea Party's No. 1 goal: to vote all the bums out, Democrat and Republican alike. Hannity wants to keep those bums in power, as long as they're members of the GOP and their last name isn't Paul."
Haire adds, "There's nothing more disastrous that could happen to the GOP than for the Tea Party to become a true force within the Republican Party, perhaps even becoming a viable third party."
Despite their rhetoric, the GOP establishment's greatest fear is not Barack Obama, but that conservatives might finally begin to wander off the Republican reservation. With the Tea Party movement, the increasing mainstream popularity of Ron Paul, states' rights initiatives, and other non-party directed efforts, conservatives have already started to wander and should keep wandering farther if they are ever going to truly escape from their GOP-imposed exile and if "conservative victory" is ever going to mean anything more than just being Republican and beating Democrats.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=831
Barack Obama is the most socialist president in American history. Before Obama, George W. Bush was the most socialist president in American history. Before Dubya, it was Bill Clinton, then Bush Sr., Reagan, and so on. Each successive administration, by and large, has presided over a federal government that has assumed more power and spent more money than the last.
And the same will be true in 2012 or 2016 if America elects just any old establishment Republican. Yet, the continuous, everyday narrative being put out by the GOP and talk radio is that it is of the utmost importance for conservatives to unite in order to defeat the Democrats.
About President Obama, Rush Limbaugh warns, "He wants to destroy capitalism. He wants to establish a very powerful socialist government, authoritarian." Bombast aside, Rush is not off the mark. The problem is the same criticism could be leveled against George W. Bush, who "abandoned free-market principles to save the free market system" with the historically unprecedented, socialist TARP bailout and whose administration increased executive power to what many considered an extreme, authoritarian degree.
Fear mongering to keep Republican voters in the fold is nothing new. Before Obama, it was Bill Clinton who was going to destroy America, or as Limbaugh put it in his 1993 book, See I Told You So: "Get ready, folks, for the biggest confiscation of your money ever by the government ... Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson look like pikers compared to this guy." In 2007, McClatchy News Service reported that Bush had spent more than any president since LBJ, making Clinton look like a piker. In the '90s, Rush warned against Clinton's "radical agenda" and "extreme Leftist blueprint," yet while "Slick Willie" was certainly every bit the statist Rush portrayed, comparatively, he was actually more fiscally conservative than Bush.
Liberals who accuse conservatives of being selective in their anti-government outrage have a valid point. Consider this scenario: What if there had never been a President George W. Bush and we went straight from Clinton to electing Obama in 2000? Now imagine Obama had governed exactly as Bush had -- starting the Iraq war, implementing the Patriot Act, doubling the national debt, expanding Medicare, enacting No Child Left Behind, pushing through TARP, the whole bit. How would Rush and the GOP have reacted? Would they have said that Obama was "destroying capitalism" or trying "to establish a very powerful socialist government?" Of course they would.
Conservatives who continue to make the case that Obama is worse than Bush are right, but the fact that Rush and like-minded pundits and politicians are unable to find fault with the last socialist Republican president is a pretty good indication as to what they'll tolerate from the next one.
Rush's, and much of talk radio's, preferred GOP candidate in 2008 was Mitt Romney, whose record as the governor of Massachusetts wasn't exactly conservative. Romney's current politics, as outlined in his new book, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, differs from Obama's primarily in their priorities and not on the issues of out-of-control federal spending or the massive growth of government. Imagine if Romney had been elected in 2008 and pursued Obama's exact agenda, including national healthcare. This scenario actually isn't much of a stretch considering that Obamacare is based on Romneycare, the Bay State's current government healthcare plan. Would Rush and his Republican friends defend Romney's Obama-style agenda? If the last decade was any indication, they would.
Today, the popular Tea Party movement represents the first sign of conservative sanity in some time, due to their possible willingness to be independent of the Republican Party, something GOP politicians and their talk radio spokesman already fear. Reviewing Sean Hannity's new book Conservative Victory, the City Paper's Chris Haire writes, "Hannity has nothing but disdain for the Tea Party's No. 1 goal: to vote all the bums out, Democrat and Republican alike. Hannity wants to keep those bums in power, as long as they're members of the GOP and their last name isn't Paul."
Haire adds, "There's nothing more disastrous that could happen to the GOP than for the Tea Party to become a true force within the Republican Party, perhaps even becoming a viable third party."
Despite their rhetoric, the GOP establishment's greatest fear is not Barack Obama, but that conservatives might finally begin to wander off the Republican reservation. With the Tea Party movement, the increasing mainstream popularity of Ron Paul, states' rights initiatives, and other non-party directed efforts, conservatives have already started to wander and should keep wandering farther if they are ever going to truly escape from their GOP-imposed exile and if "conservative victory" is ever going to mean anything more than just being Republican and beating Democrats.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=831