From Rick Hill on Facebook:
One of my liberal Facebook friends asked the other day what it is that conservatives are trying to “conserve?”
The answer is that conservatives are seeking to conserve traditional views about faith and family. We seek to conserve property rights including the right to benefit from one’s labor. We seek to conserve the traditional advocacy for smaller and less intrusive government. We seek to conserve traditional views of individual rights and liberties such as free speech, free assembly, right to petition, religious freedom, right to bear arms, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, equal protection, states rights and representative government.
All under attack from the left.
Oh please. Â â€“Â Let’s break it down:
The answer is that conservatives are seeking to conserve traditional views about faith and family. â€“Â Which are discriminatory towards me, so no, you don’t get to keep being a bigot. Get over it, grow up, and be a decent human being. Jesus never said anything against the gays, lesbians, trans or bis. Your evangelical narcissists do, but they are bigots, and if you follow them, so are you.
We seek to conserve property rights including the right to benefit from one’s labor. Â â€“Â But not at a fair wage if you’re not already a millionaire.
We seek to conserve the traditional advocacy for smaller and less intrusive government.Â â€“Â Except if you’re a woman, becauseÂ then you want to stand between her and her doctor to tell exactly what she can and cannot do with her body and her health.
We seek to conserve traditional views of individual rights and liberties such as free speech, free assembly, right to petition, religious freedom, right to bear arms, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, equal protection, states rights and representative government.Â Â â€“Â Whooo boy. Free speech – we’re having that right here, and while I want you to learn, to be smarter, and not say stupid things, it’s your right to do speak on anything, regardless of your understanding of it. It is our right to judge you on your ignorance, that’s part of the deal.
Free assembly â€“Â oh, you mean like the Occupy movement? Or maybe the crowds gathering in Ferguson? Oh, not those, eh?
Right to petitionÂ â€“Â no one is stopping you from doing this. No one. Find me some example of this, please.
Religious Freedom â€“Â your religious freedom is as sacrosanct as mine. A good way to think about this, tho, is that your religion is similar to your penis – you can have one, you can even be proud of it, but don’t wave it in public and don’t shove it down anyone’s throat.
Right to bear armsÂ â€“ go for it. I have no issue with responsible gun owners. I do think we should have background checks when people buy them, because we’ve so much proof that even just that dramatically decreases the gun violence we’ve been subjected to recently.
Now, this next part gets me. I know what you meant to put, but the order you put it in, Rick, is ambiguous and entertaining.
Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure â€“Â yep, nothing new here, although you should be complaining about the militarization of police forces, but I don’t see you speaking up on that at all.
Equal protectionÂ â€“Â you want to be free from equal protection? Because you don’t think that everyone should be treated equally under the law? What the hell, Rick? Oh, this is your poor writing skills at work, eh? You want to have equal protection? Well, so do the liberals of the world. In fact, only the liberals do, because the conservatives act like they’d rather keep the patriarchy of the Old White Guys in place.
Freedom from states’ rights? Heh.
As for what you meant to say; that you’re conserving states’ rights, yes, as are we. We believe even in city and county rights, that they enact things first to see if they work or if they suck, and so we can have some experimentation and get it right before we take it nation-wide. But eventually, when we figure something out and realize it should be that way for everyone, we are going to take it nation-wide. Heck, your side does that, too, just not as often because it does require good ideas that can be proven to work.
Representative government â€“Â we have this. Like it or not, this is what we have. We vote, and the people we vote for do things that sometimes we like and sometimes we don’t and we have some issues with money adversely affecting the process, but overall, we have a representative government. Where we lack this is in keeping people out of power when they aren’t elected, but that requires we change how things work when people lose elections. And if I remember right, that would have directly affected you, so I’m guessing you really don’t go for that.
So thank you for spouting the platitudes, but you aren’t actually fighting for a one of them. You, and your party, are actively trying to destroy them all.