In What Areas do Conservatives allow Dissent?

There is another thread which makes the claims about 'Leftists' not tolerating dissent.

But every rational person knows that "Conservatives" are just as intolerant of dissent within their ranks.

Now- I am not saying this about all Conservatives- nor even most- most Conservatives- like most Liberals- have more in common with both the right and the left, then not, and are able to play nicely together. Most people are able to do so.

But there are the irrational extremes- and that is whom I am addressing- the extremist Conservatives who regularly proclaim that they can't trust any liberal, or that all liberals are evil- or my favorite- that all Democrats work for the Devil.

To summarize, those people claim to champion independence and freedom, but they allow no dissent on gun control, immigration, abortion, race, sexual orientation, abortion, energy policy and others.

To you folk- is there any venue for legitimate disagreement for legitimiate dissent actually to remain?

Can you think of even one area of policy in which a person is allowed to vary from what you consider 'correct' without you labeling him a traitor, or a sell out, or a homofascist or a race traitor or baby killer?

 

If someone is a champion of independence and freedom, how are they to tolerate tyranny on gun control, tyranny on immigration, tyranny on abortion, tyranny on race, tyranny on sex, tyranny on abortion (again for some reason) tyranny on energy policy, or tyranny on any other topic? Your argument is silly. When have you ever encountered a conservative that was against intolerance?

It's the liberals that claim to be tolerant. Not the conservatives. And yet it's the conservatives that lobby for individual liberty, and the liberals that lobby for tyrannical control of society.

 

The trouble with both Parties is that people quit thinking for themselves and march in lock step with what their Party dictates to them. There is easily a middle ground in many things, like abortion, but one side doesn't want it at all and the other side wants the right to do it right up to birth.

There is a middle groud to the immigration problem, where one side wants to make them all citizens and the other side wants to deport them all.

We have one side that says we can't live without cheap illegal labor. That we shouldn't even have borders. The other side says we need cheap labor, but it doesn't have to be illegal.

One side says that government is the answer to most of our problems. The other side says government is the cause of most of our problems.

The problem is, neither side wants to compromise. There is an answer to all of these problems if the two sides were willing to compromise. But neither wants to give any credit to the other. Each side is wanting power and they will do what's good for the Party before they'll do what's good for the country.

 

The big difference is that conservatives don't make a big show of being open-minded.

Yes, we are intolerant of some views. Think about the word, do you have to tolerate anything that is good? No, you don't. If you tolerate it, it probably isn't good.

- - - Updated - - -

Please tell me the "easy middle ground" that can be found on abortion?

True.

 

Where did I mention 'tolerating tyranny'?

Here is my question again:

Can you think of even one area of policy in which a person is allowed to vary from what you consider 'correct' without you labeling him a traitor, or a sell out, or a homofascist or a race traitor or baby killer?

Well I think that statement pretty much confirms what part of the Conservative spectrum you fall within.

 

I look at the Liberal view on many subjects and I can't understand it. I have asked them many times to trying and justify their belief on immigration and open borders. I have asked them to justify a reason outside of the mother's health and a fetus that might not be healthy, to why they would support abortion right up to 9 months. I know we do need government help some times, but government is inefficient that does most things wrong and waste billions. Why they would want to put government in charge of most of our life and jobs? Their answrs never make sense to me.

 

Marine- I think there are plenty of people on both sides who are willing to compromise.

They just get drowned out by the extremists on both sides who will not accept any compromise- and frankly attempt to demonize the side that they are not part of.

Most of us have more in common with each other than we do with the extremes of whatever political shade we identify with.

 

I'm a conservative R who tries to look at both sides of an issue, although I have strong views.

I'm fairly liberal with early term abortions and homosexual legal unions. The JFK democrats are more sensible in my mind than most democrats today.

I'm a strong supporter of the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment, and so are some democrats.

I like social welfare programs, but I insist that able-bodied recipients work. Illegal drugs proven by mandatory testing on welfare recipients should suspend their benefits, although children should be protected and cared for.

The real Tea Party principles of constitutional adherence is supported by myself and more democrats than some will admit IMHO.

 

As long as you are willing to have that conversation with an open mind- and don't condemn 'Liberals' for merely being Liberals' I don't see anything wrong with that.

You may not accept or understand the disagreement, but can you accept that most Americans that you disagree with are arguing with the same intent- which is what is best for America? But just disagree on how that is achieved?

- - - Updated - - -

I love your reply.

 

Is this what I'm to expect of the caliber of your argument? Do I really have to explain your own argument to you? Your argument is about tolerance. You're attempting to frame conservatives as hypocrites because they don't tolerate certain political ideals, while at the same time they chastise liberals for their intolerance of dissent. Your argument is based on the fallacy that if an individual is to be critical of intolerance, he must also be universally tolerant. That notion is ridiculous. Conservatives have a right to point out liberal intolerance, while at the same time they hold views that are intolerant.

Please post examples of me calling someone a traitor, or a sell out or a homofascist or a race traitor or a baby killer.

Liberals do love to put people in groups with labels...

 

First of all Cons need to realize there are legitimate reasons for abortions. And Liberals need to realize there is almost no good reason for late term abortion. Where should the cut off should be. To me, that should be just before the fetus is fully developed and could live outside of the mother if they had to take it. About 20-25 weeks I think. Is there any good reason to wait longer?

 

This seems to be a source of tension in the GOP because there's a new schism. Younger Republicans have a strong libertarian slant. They want less intervention, fewer laws, less centralization of power. The older Republicans seem to be mostly neo/paleo conservatives who favor tough-on-crime policies, strong policing, military intervention, and social engineering that bans behaviors they don't like (drugs, teen sex, gay sex, Islam, etc.), which includes more laws, prisoners and centralized government.

The feud between Paul Rand and Chris Christie a few months back, showed a crack in the armor within the GOP between the libertarians and the neocons. I don't think there's been a better time for the GOP to split. The USA needs a third party and this is an ideal opportunity.

 

I certainly think that many Americans would unite under the founding principals of the civil society that grew out of the enlightenment. But that requires that everyone realize that the tyranny of centralized authority isn't just bad when the other guy is in power. It's bad when your guy is in power too.

 

So in other words, the compromise is very much pro-abortion. Heck, most of Europe doesn't allow elective abortions (i.e.no questions asked) after 12 weeks. After that point there has to be a legitimate medical reason. As a pro-lifer, I'd be willign to compromise to European standards on this one, as the fewer abortions the better. I still think there is no way that abortion is not the killing of a unique human life.If a fetus isn't human life, what is it?

 

I'd be more in favor of doing away with all Parties and let our representatives vote their mind or how we tell them, instead of how their party dictates to them. I would bet a million dollars, they would vote a heck of a lot different than they do now.

 

Frankly I'm not sure Obama, through Harry Reid has compromised a thing, since Republicans took the House. Admittedly Obama is using executive orders to pursue HIS goals, which by definition in this Country is TYRANY or if you prefer a tyrannical dictatorship. I'm not aware of any Conservative, Constitutionalist or ANY philosophy right of center that would consider compromising with like minded or loyalist to that philosophy....

 

Of course you would like a conservative third party. Third parties always end up causing the side least like the third party to win. Ross Perot gave us Clinton because of that general trend.

 

Yes it is, when it gets to the point it has all it organs and features to support a human being. But to keep insisting it's life as soon as the egg has been fertelized is crazy. It's not any more a life than a yellowing of an egg yoke right after the egg is layed. This is why people need to be able to compromise. I can't say 12 weeks is to early, as Im not sure how far along the developement is at that time. But is there hardly any reason a person would have to wait longer than 12 weeks to have an abortion?

 

I don't know what you've been observing for the last few years, but the Democrats, ie liberals have shut out Democrats who disagree with any element of the Democrats platform. They have gone so far as to take away their right to be heard at a national convention.

Conservatives thrive on debate. So much so that they debate more than they act.

 

The moment of fertilization is the only point at which we can guarantee a life exists. Anything before that, no human life. Anytime after that, like the organ development, is just arbitrary. That said, I would be willing to compromise at the 12 week mark, not because I don't think a human life is being killed, but because it's just that a compromise, and I realize it's as far as liberals might possibly bend (and even then, it doesn't seem that way). I note that you don't seem to be willing to compromise on this. It's sad to say, but I actually wish Clinton was President. At least he thought that keeping abortion rare was a good thing, unlike the current occupant of the White House who doesn't seem to have a type of abortion that he doesn't like.

 

And nowhere did I accuse you of doing any such thing. Or anyone.

Once again

There is another thread which makes the claims about 'Leftists' not tolerating dissent.

But every rational person knows that "Conservatives" are just as intolerant of dissent within their ranks.

Now- I am not saying this about all Conservatives- nor even most- most Conservatives- like most Liberals- have more in common with both the right and the left, then not, and are able to play nicely together. Most people are able to do so.

But there are the irrational extremes- and that is whom I am addressing- the extremist Conservatives who regularly proclaim that they can't trust any liberal, or that all liberals are evil- or my favorite- that all Democrats work for the Devil.

To summarize, those people claim to champion independence and freedom, but they allow no dissent on gun control, immigration, abortion, race, sexual orientation, abortion, energy policy and others.

To you folk- is there any venue for legitimate disagreement for legitimate dissent actually to remain?

Can you think of even one area of policy in which a person is allowed to vary from what you consider 'correct' without you labeling him a traitor, or a sell out, or a homofascist or a race traitor or baby killer?


So- are you part of:
But there are the irrational extremes- and that is whom I am addressing- the extremist Conservatives who regularly proclaim that they can't trust any liberal, or that all liberals are evil- or my favorite- that all Democrats work for the Devil. ?

If you aren't- I am not speaking to you.

 

We all agree that there are plenty of people out there willing to comprise and negotiate. While that might be true, we know that Obama has refused to comprise on any of his poilitical views and precepts.

 

Abotion should be rare. It shouldn't be used as a form of birth control, especially now that you have the governmet paying for birth control.

 

most republicans here are against the 2nd Amendment applying to all Americans, they think owning a gun is a privilege rather then a right


.

 

Huh......?