Re: senator franken is a go
Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 3:02 pm
Snorri1234 wrote:Woodruff wrote:That is 100% irrelevant. It IS traditional for THIS country's history. Since we're speaking of the American brand of conservatism here (what used to be the Republican part), that is what is relevant.
Hell, American liberals are conservative by European standards, so how does that definition help any?
So anyone who isn't against gay marriage or abortion is automatically not a conservative?
I don't believe it's legitimate to claim that one issue makes someone (or keeps one from being) a conservative or liberal. That simply doesn't make sense and, once again, is tremendously lazy. I'm not sure why you insist with such lazy thinking.
Snorri1234 wrote:Do you even know what a True Scotsman fallacy is?
I didn't before you guys mentioned it in this thread (I went and looked). And I maintain that it does not apply in this instance. It's true that I think very little of President Bush II, but even if I liked him I certainly wouldn't consider him a true conservative. Good heavens, he spent money like there was no end to it...that ain't conservative.
Snorri1234 wrote:And if you agree that conservatism is "sticking with tradition" then fucking over military members, attacking countries for no real reason and outrageous spending are perfect examples of good-old American traditions.
Historically, American conservatives treat the military VERY well, actually. You're very wrong about that one. Vietnam being the obvious and painful exception to that rule. And perhaps you can point out for me where historically the United States has been "traditional" about attacking countries for no reason? Using the CIA to assist coups, absolutely...but military attacks? I don't think so.