Traditional Americans are losing their nation...

 

I just figured I'd finally mention to you, that no one cares.

 

FE, I have a serious question for you, no real motive just a curious venture. What do you define as "traditional" America?

 

Because the way I see it, America is an amazing shapeshifter. Idealogies and sciences that worked three decades ago no longer function in today's society, and every generation grows up with different economic, social, religious, and legal idealogies.

 

There's a natural progression of things, and I don't really understand the terminology "traditionalist" when speaking in a political sense.

 

That being said, I'm a conservative for a few simple reasons. I'm for smaller government, more responsible spending, and accountability in politics. I refuse to associate with either party because as of recent administrations they've excercised none of those things.

 

As far as Obama being a centrist, I looked up the term on Wiki (I think we can safely use Wiki in this circumstance), and came across this-

 

Wiki wrote: An alternate definition is to assume that the two poles in question (e.g., Left/Right) are well-defined, and then (i) define as 'centrist' any position which the Left considers too far Right and the Right considers too far Left, and (ii) define as a 'Centrist' any person who self-identifies more with those positions than either the Left or the Right. The weakness in this argument is that it is difficult to unambiguously and objectively define both poles at once, but that difficulty affects all political definitions, not just centrists.

 

I say that only because terms like centrist have been thrown around a lot when people simply choose not to associate with either party. Obama has clearly chosen what party reflects his political standing, and I don't see how he's even remotely middle of the road.

 

I don't see Obama as a slave to the Democractic party, but in the same way Bush wasn't even remotely the poster child for traditional Republican idealogies, that's practically meaningless in the scheme of things. He's still squarely seated in the left, and endorses their idealogies.

 

I don't think that Obama or Bush moved closer to the middle of the road so much as "middle of the road" is no longer easy to define. Both parties are having to rethink strategies and move away from long held ideas to survive in the current atmosphere.

 

I see these things as moving in the right direction. Which gets me to my original point, traditionalism does not define healthy politics.

 

Nice added insult btw... Guess that wasn't an insult either?...

 

You manipulate everything. Did I say that people didn't care about whats happening in America? No.

If this thread were talking about how America is changing then yes, I would understand were you are coming from. But you take the basic framework and then pump so much of your B.S. into it, and then get all bent out of shape when someone calls you out on it. You do this in almost every single thread. That is what no one cares about. The America changing thing, yes, we care. Your ridiculous opinions and view points on everything, no, we don't care. Make one of those little voting threads asking the forum if we care about your opinions, you post plenty of pointless threads anyways, see how the results turn out. Us not caring is not an insult. If you want to twist the English language again, (yet whine when anyone else does it) you be my guest. I'm done with you FE. Comment away at this if you'd like. I have better things to do that sit and try to understand the mind set of an insecure, irrational, immature boy who thinks that he is right simply because thats what mommy and daddy told you when they actually payed attention to you. <--- That, was an insult. (Now I'm going to pull out one of your tactics) Stating the FACTS, and saying that no one cares, that is not an insult, it doesn't degrade you personally in any way. It's just the truth.

 

But now! I'm going to do something that you never could, because you are too attention starved. I'm going to walk away from you, and ignore you.

I think that the shift in moral conviction is the side effect of a free country. It's not just America-the entire world has shifted from a religious to a humanisitic viewpoint. While it does in a way sadden me to see the country so calloused against religion, especially people my age that feel a newfoud sense of superiority over those of us that choose to believe in a Higher Power, I understand that even though the constitution is not a living document that changes, the same can't be said for the population.

 

As a conservative we have to seperate our religious beliefs from our political convictions. You can't force a change in society through politics, that's counter everything this country was founded on. You can fight for your freedom to practice your religion, but you can't fight for that religion to dominate the politics.

 

Part of a free country is that when the majority changes, the idealogies and practices of that country change. I have this debate with my fellow conservatives fairly frequently, and my point always remains the same-if you give the country the power to define law based on, or intertwined with, religion, it's almost inevitable that at some point the religion the country is defined will no longer agree with yours, then you're in a whole world of oppression (cough...middle east...cough). It's the good with the bad-there will be times the majority of those in office agree with you, and there will be times when you're the minority.

 

What's important to me, and most every other American, is defining a set of core values that never change. That's where the left vs right comes in for me. I believe in my right to bear arms, my definite and without question freedom of speech and religion (unless of course these are taken to extremes, and cause other rights or freedomes to be infringed upon), etc etc...

 

I think it's possible to fight for your core values, but still accept that your views may not define society at this point. And for the record, I actually do open the door for ladies :P. Unless it's an ex...then I try to slam it on an extremity.

 

As for the founding fathers, I found this on Wiki, thought I'd throw it out there since this discussion comes out quite often-

 

Wikipedia wrote: Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders. Some of the 1787 delegates had no affiliation. The others were Protestants except for three Roman Catholics: C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons. Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 28 were Church of England (Episcopalian, after the Revolutionary War was won), eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists, the total number being 49. Some of the more prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical or vocal about their opposition to organized religion, such as Thomas Jefferson[12][13] (who created the "Jefferson Bible"), and Benjamin Franklin[14]. However, other notable founders, such as Patrick Henry, were strong proponents of traditional religion. Several of the Founding Fathers considered themselves to be deists or held beliefs very similar to that of deists.[15]