And RINO Republicans vote overwhelmingly for pork.

Calling yourself a “conservative” means nothing. Being one….that’s the thing. Being one.

You’re analogies are weak. period.

PS – morning all. i feel like i may have the swine flu. (but I don’t.)

One again with the “The problem with Conservatives is that they’re christian” bit?

broken record, playing the same thing over and over.

Buchanan is not a conservative, that’s where your comparison breaks down.

He believes in pushing a religious agenda through government which is not a conservative ideal.

stop with the anti-christian bigotry as an excuse for why you can’t ‘be conservative’ (as you’ve stated before)

“Conservatism is smaller in scope, imo, and doesn’t really have anything to do with Islam, for instance, except insofar as it deals with the need to face uncomfortable truths and the right of self-defense.”

I think that Buchanan is right insofar as the core of Conservatism, in its American form, is Christian. I’d expand the Conservative tent a little further to include rooted communities of Conservative and Orthodox Jews. Also, Mormons; and rural African Americans. The common denominator is “blood and soil”.

Conservative communities need not co-operate with one another; for instance, black Conservatives overwhelmingly vote Democrat. (Not all, but most. And then you go talk to one and get amazed as to how much she agrees with you… while still voting Democrat.)

Conservatives of any party and race, in this country, should all agree that Islam is foreign and different. If a Conservative were to convert to Islam, that would be a change away from the familiar. A Conservative would object to Islam on that alone, like he’d object to Baha’i.

Additionally Islam isn’t “just another” lovey-dovey religion with a few odd personalities and rules. It’s a violent ideology of conquest and subjugation. (Excepting those Sufi who interpret the Qur’an away to irrelevance.) Conservatives object to getting killed and enslaved too.

I don’t see why the PIG series must be evaluated as a whole, if they have different authors. I think they are intended as “the other side of the story” and thus only half the story. But the only one I’ve read was the one on Islam; I can’t really evaluate it objectively based on prior knowledge, but it was well argued and cited direct sources.

And I don’t think they are all conservative, so much as anti-liberal, which is the dominate social media paradigm. Conservatism is smaller in scope, imo, and doesn’t really have anything to do with Islam, for instance, except insofar as it deals with the need to face uncomfortable truths and the right of self-defense.

I’m not seeing excuses for slavery in the main post.

I’m seeing an attempt to restore balance to the discussion. I agree with that. I’m also seeing anti-Lincoln sentiment in the subsequent comments. I can’t agree with that.

The Politically Incorrect Guide series, I have a general problem with. (It’s what turned me against Robert Spencer.)

The PIG series is Conservative propaganda. It lays out cases for several Conservative ideas.

That’s not necessarily bad. It’s a truism that one can do propaganda for righteous causes, and that it can be true. Capra’s “Why We Fight” series is propaganda. It may as well be history.

Seen that way, some of the PIG’s cases are better than others. Spencer’s guide to “Islam and the Crusades” was one of the better ones. Kantor’s guide to Western literature was the best.

But I’m not into all the Conservative ideas; and insofar as the PIG series is a set, it’s associated with stuff that I must oppose. Wells’ book on “Darwinism and Intelligent Design”, Bethell’s on “Science”, and Hutchinson’s on the Bible (blurbed by Spencer) are all rubbish.

Rolling back to the PIGs on slavery and American history, the propaganda on display here falls more into the “leave us Conservatives alone” field, and that’s what LanceKates seems to be doing here. The PIGs here are telling the truth; that slavery didn’t start out because of racism. It started out because of greed and because of bad decisions by courts. The racism came later, to justify what was being done; and was imported from, interestingly, the Arabs.

The two PIGs LanceKates cites do less well with Lincoln. For a start Lincoln is documented as becoming personally more well-disposed to blacks’ rights over the 1860s. As a rule if it cites DiLorenzo with a straight face, it’s propaganda.

Newspaper Edges Back from Anti-Limbaugh ‘Slavery’ Smear; Sports Writer Says He’s Right Even if Quote Is Wrong

MSNBC guest: For Limbaugh, owning an NFL team would be like owning a plantation

If that’s the case, that is really weird, because if people said those same things on the LGF blog itself, they’d be banned for it.