<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>EricLee.us - Latest Comments in Conservatism Series, Part One:  What is a conservative?</title><link>http://ericleeus.disqus.com/</link><description>If it's going to be, it's up to me.</description><atom:link href="https://ericleeus.disqus.com/conservatism_series_part_one_what_is_a_conservative/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:50:21 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Conservatism Series, Part One:  What is a conservative?</title><link>http://ericlee.us/2008/10/what-is-a-conservative/#comment-2988306</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Thanks for your comment, Angelo, and thanks for coming by.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Eric Lee</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:50:21 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Conservatism Series, Part One:  What is a conservative?</title><link>http://ericlee.us/2008/10/what-is-a-conservative/#comment-2974271</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I like the cut of your jib – not many people these days take the time to ground their politics in theory. I think it’s a real nice idea to take the time to contextualise the conservative position and I applaud your efforts.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Lots of so-called conservatives put forward what are actually classical liberal arguments without specifying what they value that is particularly conservative; while these arguments are of course sound and valid, it is refreshing to see such attention to the background and detail that you rightly point out is necessary to fully grasp conservatism. (The link to the Kirk Centre is also very handy.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I wish Burke had divided his book into chapters and expressed himself as clearly as you do.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Angelo</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:26:06 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>