Gentleman Conservatives

Information

Gentleman Conservatives

A meeting place for gentlemen who believe in Conservative values and principles.

Members: 138
Latest Activity: Nov 17

Discussion Forum

Conservative or not??

Started by Johnnie Bradley. Last reply by Luis Rivas Aug 13, 2013. 19 Replies

Ok gentlemen.  Here is my problem.  Why do we seem to support a non conservative, like Romney, when we have a good proven conservative like Newt or John Huntsman?  Are we so scared of the left that…Continue

Time For A New Party?

Started by Khalid El-Talabani. Last reply by KL15 Jun 1, 2013. 4 Replies

It is time to shed the “I’m a Conservative-Republican or Conservative-Democrat” label because it just positions the conservative within a sub-group of the party. A conservative hyphenated Republican…Continue

This is Very Presidential

Started by Mike. Last reply by Tim Boland Jan 12, 2012. 2 Replies

Stay classy, Mr. PresidentYou, too, can purchase this fine article of clothing at…Continue

2012 Conservative Presidential Candidates

Started by David Arbogast May 23, 2011. 0 Replies

Conservative Gentlemen! I live in Iowa which is now seeing its periodic influx of Presidential candidates of all stripes.  The next big event will be the iowa Straw Poll in Ames, Iowa, to which I…Continue

Comment Wall

Comment

You need to be a member of Gentleman Conservatives to add comments!

Comment by John on May 10, 2014 at 6:36pm

seems like the room gets quiet when its not election time..

Comment by Rick Stevens on August 19, 2012 at 3:28pm

Welcome Shane!

Comment by Kevin Collier on August 19, 2012 at 2:40pm

Welcome Shane!

Comment by Shane San on August 19, 2012 at 9:33am

I'm a 23 year-old conservative, looking forward to learning from you all.

Comment by Titus Techera on March 7, 2012 at 3:41pm

What? No. It's a dog-eat-dog world in speeches!

Comment by Titus Techera on March 7, 2012 at 3:36pm

What liberals mean is that it's alright for however many liberals to say horrible things about women because those liberals are not as powerful as Mr. Limbaugh. Pettiness is exculpatory, of course, & moralizing liberals can go on enjoying the horrible things other liberals, who are plainly immoral, say about conservative women.

That's liberals fighting the powerful, just like when Mr. Clinton was accused of treating several women in a humiliating manner. Liberals as one rallied to the cause of the women then & were undaunted by the power of the office of the president or the partisan inclination to defend one of their own. They stood for the principles of feminism that day & fought against the objectification of women & the patriarchal abuse of power...

It's just like the day Mr. Obama used the bully pulpit to bully FOX News. Liberals in the media immediately recoiled, faced with this 'chilling' of the free press & did not in any way suggest may FOX should be destroyed. They stood for principle against partisanship, arguing no doubt that if Mr. Obama was worth anything they had said he was, he would be properly chastised & would learn that the free press is very necessary to a democracy. & never mind that a great majority of journalists vote / donate Democrat.

Comment by Titus Techera on March 7, 2012 at 12:19pm

Well, I'll help you flex that morality muscle you're limping all over the room.

The objection Mr. Limbaugh presented in the manner of ridicule mostly turned on calling the woman a slut, her kind of life prostitution, & climaxed with a request that she post the putative sex tapes for people to see.

This amounts to a complaint that the woman is immoral. Maybe unless the word is used, it just doesn't trigger in your brain. But at least pay attention to the mention of shame in many of the feminist attacks on Mr. Limbaugh: even they got it, the matter is morality, because shame is a matter of morality. The feminists & Mr. Limbaugh disagree on what is good morality, but agree that a serious question of morality deals with the relation between sex & shame in public discourse.

Comment by OHK on March 7, 2012 at 12:13pm

Where does morality fit into this? I don't recall me, Fluke, nor Limbaugh mentioning it.

Comment by Titus Techera on March 7, 2012 at 1:48am

I don't mean to teach you a sense of humor. If you cannot see why presenting the need for contraception as high-principled morality is a travesty, you probably don't understand morality anyway. Suffice it to say that morality as properly & commonly understood requires self-sacrifice, not selfishness. It requires understanding & fulfilling duties, not making claims upon claims to get more things. It concerns what one does for others, not what one expects others to do for oneself...

As for Mr. Limbaugh, his written apology - I have not heard his apologies on air - gives this self-presentation: I illustrate the absurd with absurdity. - Not to say he does not take politics dead seriously, but his manner is comic. It is quite clear that in this case he was ridiculing the sanctimony of a gender activist at one of the nation's elite schools asking the many to pay for her contraception, or else they're unjust.

Mr. Limbaugh does not pretend it's gentlemanly of him to discuss politic in the way he does. That would be silly. Gentlemen are hidebound by politeness & could not call a spade a spade...

Comment by OHK on March 6, 2012 at 6:52pm

Gentlemen, unlike ladies, are not only allowed, but expected to lose their gentle habits on occasion.


If you believe calling a woman a slut and prostitute on national radio is acceptable and expected venting that could still be called gentlemanly, then we have very different definitions of what it means to be a gentleman, and IMO your definition is laughable and meaningless, and not in anyway based on accepted respected manners.


The idea of a young woman going up before Congress saying that young women in college need the contraception for free, because it can be quite costly..., is ungodly.

Why?

 

Members (138)

 
 
 

Latest Activity

Jay D replied to Leto Atreides II's discussion Ferguson Grand Jury Decision in the group The Great Debate
""And you are also mistaken if you think those rioting, are doing so because of Brown. He's an excuse, not a reason. " Might be, but this raises the question why they are looking for excuses to riot and furthermore how did they get in…"
52 minutes ago
Curtis replied to Leto Atreides II's discussion Ferguson Grand Jury Decision in the group The Great Debate
"Titus, I appreciate what you're saying and agree somewhat, I just don't think it's quite so cut and dry. Shooting an unarmed man/youth in "self-defence" simply because he might have been armed, speaks more of fear than…"
53 minutes ago
Curtis replied to Leto Atreides II's discussion Ferguson Grand Jury Decision in the group The Great Debate
"JB, I'm not familiar with US law, nor will I pretend to be...but what I perceive you to be saying is that; whether he was armed or not - regardless of the fact that the punishment (or "justice" as you labelled it) far outweighs the…"
1 hour ago
Sean O' replied to Vytautas's discussion What Do We Learn From History?
"That is a thought I can appreciate and understand. You gave me a lot to digest, much more than the original post I responded to, and I enjoy that."
3 hours ago
Sean O' replied to Vytautas's discussion What Do We Learn From History?
"Titus, I appreciate your response and will have to give it further considerations. Thanks you"
3 hours ago
Dark Mockery updated their profile
3 hours ago
Satanist Dan replied to Vytautas's discussion What Do We Learn From History?
"I would rather trust the federal government, when under the firm hand of the populace, than to the state government of any affair. Especially in Education, where we lag behind numerous other nations, and have such ridiculous fiascoes such…"
3 hours ago
Sean O' replied to Vytautas's discussion What Do We Learn From History?
"OK. And why is this bad and needing to be replaced? And how should it be replaced?"
3 hours ago

© 2014   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service