Dede Scozzafava is no moderate. Conservative is defined as preference for smaller government, lower taxes, strong military and traditional values. If you you support those broad categories, but differ on some particulars, then you are a moderate. Scozzafava, however, doesn't qualify on any of the defining issues. She is a liberal, endorsed by ACORN. 

 

George Pataki, who is a moderate, threw his support behind Hoffman 

HAAAAHAAAA

 

Sounds like a bunch of trial lawyers arguing over what the meaning of "conservative" is.  Of course, to enforce "traditional" values, you have to have bigger government intruding in peoples' personal lives, which is what the conservatives claim they are against.

Nanny, you do have a knack for being completely clueless when it comes to politics, as well has having no grasp of any philosophy to which you do not adhere.

 

The GOP nominee in question didn't have a single position which could have been termed 'conservative'. Hell one would have been hard pressed to find a place where she agreed with any given GOP platform even. 

 

As for your claim about traditional values, I'd say you're simply off the mark (which is rather like you). If, say, the hot button topic of Gay Marriage to be made to be, it will involve much intrusion by government into things via lawsuits and whatnot. Just look at CA where people who just want to avoid things are getting trapped in lawsuits by gay activists. I can recall both the case of a doctor sued for not wanting to perform an artificial insemination on a lesbian couple (even though there was a plethora of other willing providers) and a church being sued for not wanting to provide their attached facilities for a gay wedding.

 

There's some people trying to use the power of the courts to beat down their opposition, and it's not the right. 

The Republican party has a problem with what are called LICE, Libertarians Infiltrating Conservative Entities.

 

The Libertarians can call themselves Conservative all day long, however breaking down long standing societal institutions in order to redesign society to operate more along market principles is not and has never been a Conservative viewpoint. A real Conservative doesn't give a damn about Libertopian idealism.

 

As for the moderates, that's where the votes are. You chase away the moderates out of the Republican party, you ensure they will be severely handicapped when it comes to winning elections.

 

 

Of course and as usual, you are substantially wrong.  Your pathetic Johnny-One-Note attempted "smear" of conservatives regarding the role of government relies on the false premise that supposedly conservatives think that the best solution to everything is no government.  Since that is not the case, then there is no inherent contradiction/hypocracy/whatever-you're-trying-to-imply in conservatives occassionally advocating some government action when it is proper.  Even then, your lame-ass comments contain another error in that establishing governments that are friendly to traditional family values in today's society would actually frequently mean less government involvement intruding into people's personal lives, not more.

 

The Libertarians can call themselves Conservative all day long, however breaking down long standing societal institutions in order to redesign society to operate more along market principles is not and has never been a Conservative viewpoint. A real Conservative doesn't give a damn about Libertopian idealism.

 

 FJV you have as much idea about U.S. conservative viewpoints as my dog does about quantum physics. About the only person who might actually be considered a conservative with views anything like yours is Patrick Buchannon, and most of the conservatives here gave up on his nonsense a long time ago due to the idiotic and dated melding of protectionism, isolationism, and socialism that he espouses.

Americans had the best deal of all the people in the world and now they are pissing it all away. And for what?

 

For some utopian free market ideal that will never work. For that you will abandon/dismantle any form of responsible government, which is what gave you the best deal in the first place. And instead of getting involved and fixing what's broken, abandon that in favor of none or almost no government that has already failed when tried on a limited scale?.

 

This is like talking a drug addict out of heroin.

You know what. You have a front side seat, it's your society.

 

 

You know what. You have a front side seat, it's your society.

I'm laughing at conservatives' foolish attempts to tell us who we can marry, what we can watch and what music we can listen to and all the while blathering on about "minimal government".

 

Every earthly value you people have is in ashes at your feet.

Nan, I admit my subscription to Evil Conservative Monthly has lapsed recently, but I'm trying to think of conservatives who do any of that.

 

If it had only been conservatives who blocked Prop 8 in California, it would've passed easily.  It was rejected.  Hmm.  Could there be liberals who are against gay marriage?  Naw.  Liberals are Lawful Good, whereas conservatives are Lawful Evil.  (Libertarians are Chaotic Evil.)  Why are there gay conservatives? 

Remember the halcyon days when the Republicans controlled Congress and the White House?  Gay marriage was banned completely then, wasn't it?  The Constitutional amendment was passed, right?  Oh wait...it wasn't.  Amazingly, despite eight years of Bush wiping his butt with the Constitution, gays were not burned as heretics nor were they thrown into reeducation camps. 

I wonder whether Nan thinks people should be allowed to marry a cow, watching pornography broadcast via air on prime time, and listen to white supremacist heavy metal on FM radio.

 

I just realized that Nanhe and FJV are the BW and FS of American political threads:  They seem to find any excuse to try to insert some crap about "social conservatism" in the case of Nanhe, and "libertarianism and free markets" (by which I think he means the conservative *and* libertarian emphasis on personal responsibility) in the case of FJV.

 

As usual, everything buzzard and yelli said above is right on target, especially about both of them repeatedly demonstrating their cluelessness regarding American politics and the American Right.