Conservatism

[9sublime]

Things Republicans Believe received anonymously on the net)

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest
national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

Government should relax regulation of Big Business and Big Money but crack down on individuals who use marijuana to relieve the pain of illness.

"Standing Tall for America" means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.

A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but
multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.

If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then
demand their cooperation and money.

HMOs and insurance companies have the interest of the public at heart.

Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but
creationism should be taught in schools.

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid
defense policy.

Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.

You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have a right to adopt.

What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

[Fonz]

hahaha..thats awesome.

[USMC the Almighty]

hahaha..thats awesome.

Sure, some of them are funny in a kind of juvenile, simplistic way, but a good number of those are just flat out wrong.

I could just as easily make one about liberals.

"You think that killing an innocent child is perfectly fine, but killing serial rapists and murders is morally wrong" ...

[palerider]

So why not title this thread republicans rather than conservatives. Are you under the impression that the republican party represents the conservative philosophy?

[Rokerijdude11]

No actually from what i have experienced in 4 yrs of this crap on the net is that most of his list stands true as can be from what ive seen of the right wingnuts



BTW Im neither Liberal ....or Conservative
great post man

[9sublime]

Well lets not beat about the bush, if you call yourself left wing, you generally vote democrat, and if you call yourself right wing then you generally vote republican. And if you call yourself left wing, you are generally recognised as a liberal and if you call youtself right wing then you are generally called conservative.

Yeah I should have called the post conservatism, but I didn't, and its not really incorrect.

[Fonz]

Sure, some of them are funny in a kind of juvenile, simplistic way, but a good number of those are just flat out wrong.

I could just as easily make one about liberals.

"You think that killing an innocent child is perfectly fine, but killing serial rapists and murders is morally wrong" ...


I've actually seen several of these types of lists about liberals. This is the first one i've seen about conservatives.

[9sublime]

On the topic of killing innocent children and abortion, if you are anti-abortion but pro-war:


its not ok to kill a child that hasn't actually lived, that doesn't feel as much pain and hasn't developed complex emotions that come from being outside the womb etc.

but

its fine to bomb Iraq where 100,000 innocent children have died, and one of the worst psychological traumas a person can go through is losing a child. So thats 100,000 mothers put through the worst trauma possible for them, and you wonder why the inhabitants of Iraq hate America sometimes.

[vyo476]

This is an extremely polar list. I think that just about everyone can find something to be pissed off about in there.

For instance, I consider myself to be a liberal. Still, I dislike the concept of abortion because I personally believe that life begins at conception.

I mean, do any you take this entire list completely seriously?

[9sublime]

Its humourous but at the same time quite true.

[USMC the Almighty]

On the topic of killing innocent children and abortion, if you are anti-abortion but pro-war:

its not ok to kill a child that hasn't actually lived, that doesn't feel as much pain and hasn't developed complex emotions that come from being outside the womb etc.

You're wrong already. As I've spoken about on the abortion thread, the absurd notion that it doesn’t count as a human because it is not completely developed is simply ridiculous. It is without question living entity. It has a brain, and shortly upon conception, it forms its own, independent heart beat.

A zygote, the immediate result when a male sperm and female ovum unite is unquestionably biologically alive as it fulfills the four criteria necessary:
(1) metabolism
(2) growth
(3) reaction to stimuli
(4) reproduction [cell reproduction called “twinning” – asexual]

In addition, the zygote has its own unique genetic code, thus being a unique human individual (46 chromosomes).

During the second month, the eyes, ears, nose, toes, and fingers make their appearance; the skeleton develops; the heart beats; and the blood — with its own type — flows. The unborn at this time has reflexes and her lips become sensitive to touch. By the eighth week her own unique fingerprints start to form, along with the lines in her hands.

...and this is when the vast majority of abortions are performed.



but

its fine to bomb Iraq where 100,000 innocent children have died, and one of the worst psychological traumas a person can go through is losing a child. So thats 100,000 mothers put through the worst trauma possible for them, and you wonder why the inhabitants of Iraq hate America sometimes.

First of all, these two scenarios are so different it's comical. The terrorists themselves have chosen to use human shields, thus they are responsible for the deaths. Second, that number of 100,000 Iraqi civilians (where'd you get children) has been debunked numerous times. It's less than a third of that number, and even this, is still an estimate. Those who tally up the body counts from the GZ have no clue if the dead Iraqi had previously been shooting at American troops. They simply chalk it up as a civilian death at the hands of the big bad American military because he's wearing civilian clothing. This is their strategy and you're playing right into their hands.

And it's exceedingly ironic that you would talk about the trauma of losing a child right.

MOST Iraqis love Americans and love the troops. We liberated them from an oppressive dictator. You're allowing the violent 15 or so percent to speak for the overwhelming majorirty, and that's intellectualy dishonest.

[9sublime]

MOST Iraqis love Americans and love the troops. We liberated them from an oppressive dictator. You're allowing the violent 15 or so percent to speak for the overwhelming majorirty, and that's intellectualy dishonest.

Well we will have to agree to disagree here, as neither of us can truely comment on the fact as we are not in Iraq and rely on different media sources, friends, word of mouth etc.

And as for a feotus being a different entity, yes sure, it has fully developed organs and a seperate hearbeat, but it doesn't make it a full human. It is not truely concious. It doesn't know what life is at this point, it probably can't feel pain, and even if it can it isn't in the same way we feel it, it would be more instictual. Being biologically alive doesn't mean that it is truely alive. Its a clinical term. Once again, this is an issue that you have to agree to disagree on when people have strong views on it because it can't be proven really.

The pain of losing a child you have had in your life, outside of your body, is undoubtly going to cause more pain when its lost.

[USMC the Almighty]

Well we will have to agree to disagree here, as neither of us can truely comment on the fact as we are not in Iraq and rely on different media sources, friends, word of mouth etc.

Not only have I been to Iraq, but I currently have close to 100 friends there.

[palerider]

Well lets not beat about the bush, if you call yourself left wing, you generally vote democrat, and if you call yourself right wing then you generally vote republican. And if you call yourself left wing, you are generally recognised as a liberal and if you call youtself right wing then you are generally called conservative.

Yeah I should have called the post conservatism, but I didn't, and its not really incorrect.

The republican party hardly represents conservativism. The title of the thread should have been republicans.

[9sublime]

Yeah but who are these people? Do they have the same beliefs as you? Do they see the world through their own eyes? Do they only see certain people and parts of Iraq. It's all down to sources. I have friends who are Iraq's too and I know people who have served there.

I don't see how you can imagine people being happy in a country that has gone from being under a very brutal but functioning regime to a very brutal anarchy.

[USMC the Almighty]

I don't see how you can imagine people being happy in a country that has gone from being under a very brutal but functioning regime to a very brutal anarchy.

First of all, there are elections and there is a gov't so it's not anarchy. Second, there is brutal violence in the U.S. everyday. One month last year (I think it was Jan. or Feb.) Detroit experienced more murders than Baghdad. It's impossible to end violence -- stability is the goal.

[9sublime]

First of all, there are elections and there is a gov't so it's not anarchy.

Just like the stable government in Afghanistan then.

[vyo476]

Just like the stable government in Afghanistan then.

Read his whole post. There are elections and a government so it isn't anarchy; however, it also isn't stable, which is why American troops are still there (and why USMC probably advocates their continued presence there - that is an assumption so if I'm wrong please feel free to yell at me all you like). The goal is to achieve stability for them. Detroit is just as violent as Badhdad is sometimes, but Detroit is also a stable society. Do you see the difference?

[9sublime]

Personally I find that the fact that Baghdad is the capital of the country and it is a complete mess with suicide bombers and civillian + servicemen dying everyday an indication of a highly unstable country. Sure, they may not technically be anarchist, but its bordering on it.

[USMC the Almighty]

Read his whole post. There are elections and a government so it isn't anarchy; however, it also isn't stable, which is why American troops are still there (and why USMC probably advocates their continued presence there - that is an assumption so if I'm wrong please feel free to yell at me all you like). The goal is to achieve stability for them. Detroit is just as violent as Badhdad is sometimes, but Detroit is also a stable society. Do you see the difference?

Exactly, vyo. Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I would've liked to have been, but you did a nice job of summing up my argument.

[USMC the Almighty]

Personally I find that the fact that Baghdad is the capital of the country and it is a complete mess with suicide bombers and civillian + servicemen dying everyday an indication of a highly unstable country. Sure, they may not technically be anarchist, but its bordering on it.

Most of Iraq is very stable. Only 14 of the 18 provinces are even contested. And as palerider once pointed out, 90% of the attacks are within a 50 miles radius of Baghdad. If we secure Baghdad (which this surge is currently doing) then we will secure the country. And since the media focuses on Baghdad more than any other part, when the Shi'ites leave (like al Sadr last month), they are effectively retreating from center stage.

[Justinian]

Yup. one thing liberals suffer from that conservatives don't is their lack of understanding for the other side. I understand both sides. That's why I'm a conservative. That whole thing you wrote can I guess be looked at in a comical way but in a serious way, it lacks any small comprehension of why conservatives think the way they do which arrives them at their conclusions. Personally I think most liberals are tricked into becoming one.

[TheWaffle]

Yup. one thing liberals suffer from that conservatives don't is their lack of understanding for the other side. I understand both sides. That's why I'm a conservative. That whole thing you wrote can I guess be looked at in a comical way but in a serious way, it lacks any small comprehension of why conservatives think the way they do which arrives them at their conclusions. Personally I think most liberals are tricked into becoming one.

Yup, you're right conservatives can definatly understand the other side, unlike liberals. That's why liberals fight for others while the conservative ideology encourages policies that helps themselves.

That's why conservatives are dumbstruck by the fact that there is an insurgency in Iraq which pretty much any liberal could have told you because they understand that most people don't like getting invaded.

That's why conservatives try and force their beliefs on people through law and policy while liberals support a state in which every person is free to determine their own beliefs.

That's why conservatives support ideas like the Trickle-down-effect where if it were to work it benefits the rich. But since it doesn't work it still benefits the rich and craps on the poor.

That's why conservatives believe that poverty indicates one's own failure as opposed to the result of a system that is prejudiced against them.

[palerider]

Yup, you're right conservatives can definatly understand the other side, unlike liberals. That's why liberals fight for others while the conservative ideology encourages policies that helps themselves.

Exactly what is to be gained if you fight for the other side when the other side is wrong? It is the lack of understanding and foresight that make liberals the kings of unintended consequences. They fight for policy and time after time see that policy do more damage than good and then expect to be judged on their intentions rather than their results.

That's why conservatives are dumbstruck by the fact that there is an insurgency in Iraq which pretty much any liberal could have told you because they understand that most people don't like getting invaded.

Conservatives are not dumbstruck. Moderates are. Myself and every conservative I know predicted this and suggested going into iraq with overwhelming force, establishing a curfew very early on and killing anyone in violation.

That's why conservatives try and force their beliefs on people through law and policy while liberals support a state in which every person is free to determine their own beliefs.

When I look at my life, and the rules that I must live by, the majority of them were put in place by self righteous liberals who believe that they know better than I how I should live my life. If you would like to compile a list of examples of liberals forcing their beliefs and conservatives forcing their beliefs, I will be happy to demonstrate exatly how wrong you are. Hell, here are a few examples of liberals forcing their beliefs on me right off the top of my head with no research at all.

Seat belt laws - helmet laws - laws that say that a business owner can't allow smoking in HIS OR HER own establishment - laws that make it illegal for me to carry more than 10K in cash - laws that require my bank to report me if I deposit more than 10K in cash - speech codes - laws that require me to get a building permit before building a structure on my own property that is more than 144 sauare feet - laws that prevent me from using my own property if it collects water from rain long enough to grow a certain kind of wetland grass - laws that prevent christmas displays - - - and the list can go on ad nauseum. There is a group that pushes their beliefs on everyone, but it is not conservatives.

That's why conservatives support ideas like the Trickle-down-effect where if it were to work it benefits the rich. But since it doesn't work it still benefits the rich and craps on the poor.

That is support of a belief, not enacted law. Show me the trickle down law. Liberals support ideas like minimum wage which in effect, takes those who can very least afford to lose their jobs out of the job market because they lack the skills to be worth what liberals say they must earn.

Your good intentions are worth very little to those who lose their livelyood or can't get that first job because employers can't afford to pay all of the benefits that liberals demand.

That's why conservatives believe that poverty indicates one's own failure as opposed to the result of a system that is prejudiced against them.

There are very few living in poverty in this country whose poverty can't be traced back to their own foolish choices and decisions.

[TVoffBrainOn]

There are very few living in poverty in this country whose poverty can't be traced back to their own foolish choices and decisions.

everything else you said before this was atleast somewhat accurate. but then you get carried away, and type this little nugget.

In 2001 the Census Bureau reported about 33 million residents living in poverty in the United States, or about 12 percent of the total population.

So by "very few", you are saying that about 30 million people are living in poverty because of their own foolish choices and decisions.....?

I only have two questions, Where did you grow up and have you travelled around the country much? Because the above statement is one of the most ignorant things i've read on these boards.

[palerider]

everything else you said before this was atleast somewhat accurate. but then you get carried away, and type this little nugget.

In 2001 the Census Bureau reported about 33 million residents living in poverty in the United States, or about 12 percent of the total population.

So by "very few", you are saying that about 30 million people are living in poverty because of their own foolish choices and decisions.....?

I only have two questions, Where did you grow up and have you travelled around the country much? Because the above statement is one of the most ignorant things i've read on these boards.

I didn't grow up in any one place. My dad's profession reqired that we move every 4 to 6 years. And yes, I have lived in 23 states and there is only one that I have not visited.

Further, I stand by my position that in this country, if you are living in poverty, it is, in all likelyhood, due to your own bad decisions and or foolish actions.

[Coyote]

I didn't grow up in any one place. My dad's profession reqired that we move every 4 to 6 years. And yes, I have lived in 23 states and there is only one that I have not visited.

Further, I stand by my position that in this country, if you are living in poverty, it is, in all likelyhood, due to your own bad decisions and or foolish actions.

Not necessarily - sometimes yes, sometimes no. It's a bad idea to generalize. I've lived on both sides of the poverty issue. There was a good book I read looking at the complexity of poverty in America (without making judgements) - looking at geography, towns, following individual families and people, employers, employees and their skills and work ethics (or lack of them), and programs. It was called something like "The working poor in America". The problem is both Liberals and Conservatives tend to generalize when it comes to poverty.

[USMC the Almighty]

That's why liberals fight for others while the conservative ideology encourages policies that helps themselves.

You're right -- liberals do talk more about helping others, but that's where their sympathy for others end. Conservatives (especially Christians) are more charitable than liberals (as results from a study last year indicate). The reason for this is that liberals, contrary to their title, believe in big government, and thus, see it as the government's job to help everyone.

Conservatives believe in the sovereignty of the individual, and the virtues of self-reliance and personal responsibility where they are free to chose for themselves whether or not they wish to be charitable.


That's why conservatives are dumbstruck by the fact that there is an insurgency in Iraq which pretty much any liberal could have told you because they understand that most people don't like getting invaded.

Dumbstuck? And who's being invaded? We removed their dictator, gave them free elections, countless personal liberties, and many other freedom which the vast majority of the population cherishes. The U.S. wants to get the hell out of there ASAP. We're certainly not invading or occupying.

Liberals however, are fearful of armed conflict and wish to surrender the a fraction of the population that remains loyal to Saddam or to the Islamic cause.


That's why conservatives try and force their beliefs on people through law and policy while liberals support a state in which every person is free to determine their own beliefs.

Wrong. Our schools are the battleground for political indoctrination and liberals control this front overwhelmingly. The other battleground? The media.

Liberals are in control of the means to try and force beliefs on people, so it is absurd to suggest that conservatives even have the capability to force their beliefs on people.

Liberals hate opposition and debate. If they had their way, the U.S. would be a 1 party system.


That's why conservatives support ideas like the Trickle-down-effect where if it were to work it benefits the rich. But since it doesn't work it still benefits the rich and craps on the poor.

You clearly don't know a whole lot about conservative economics. The trickle-down is meant to use the rich as a vehicle for benefitting the poor.



That's why conservatives believe that poverty indicates one's own failure as opposed to the result of a system that is prejudiced against them.

And here's the fundamental difference. Liberals hate taking responsibility. It's always the fault of "the system" or "the man". It's never the individuals fault. They're not rich? Well obviously the system is prejudiced against them.

The system might be prejudiced against laziness, but not much else.

[Coyote]

And here's the fundamental difference. Liberals hate taking responsibility. It's always the fault of "the system" or "the man". It's never the individuals fault. They're not rich? Well obviously the system is prejudiced against them.


There's not really much of a difference. With conservatives, it's always the fault of the liberals.

[USMC the Almighty]

There's not really much of a difference. With conservatives, it's always the fault of the liberals.

Well now, there's a difference. That's because it always is the liberals' fault.

[Coyote]

Well now, there's a difference. That's because it always is the liberals' fault.

:D :D :D

[ArmChair General]

Dumbstuck? And who's being invaded? We removed their dictator, gave them free elections, countless personal liberties, and many other freedom which the vast majority of the population cherishes. The U.S. wants to get the hell out of there ASAP. We're certainly not invading or occupying.

Yes we invaded Iraq. And no, we didn't come to bring them democracy or Big Gulps or Get Smart reruns or whatever. We invaded their country and occupied their cities and put their old enemies in power, just because we were pissed off after 9/ll and it seemed like a good way to let off steam and corner the market on some cheap oil while we were at it. We weren't there to liberate anybody, and we shouldn't have expected the whole rose-petal parade treatment. You dumbass, gullible neocons won't face the fact that we invaded Iraq, and invaders generate counter-insurgencies.

And all you need for an effective Counter-Insurgency is a few hundred urban guerrillas (with a much bigger base of civilian supporters). And the counter-insurgents have to have the backing of 100% of the local civilian population. So they're never going to run out of young men. And no overwhelming force short of neutron bombs will solve the problem. It doesnt matter how many troops you put into the country.

Which brings us to another very interesting question, the future of genocide and nuclear weapons. But as long as we're wimping around with this "no nukes" rule, there just ain't no kind of overwhelming force that can convince every testosterone poisoned Iraqi kid to join the Pepsi Generation. Consult your own experience, remember what young males are like? Remember high school PE? How hard would it have been to get those guys, Beavis and Butthead times 80, to plant a bomb or shoot a sentry if they thought they could get away with it, or better yet, be seen as heroes by their fellow countrymen? Teenage boys are the cannon fodder of any guerrilla war, and teenage boys are nothing but weasels who stand on their hind feet sometimes.

Keep that in mind when neocons and media types try to hand you our next piece of total crap:

Do you really think the Iraqi's want Democracy and peace and all that kind of stuff? No. In fact, HELL no! Look around the world and you'll see that people are divided into ethnic gangs, like the planet's one big San Quentin. All they want is for their gang to win. If they have any ideology beyond that, it's more of the God stuff, and you need Thorazine to cure that. Godfearing gangbangers, that's exactly what we ran into in Somalia, 1993. Half the population of Mogadishu turned on our guys who were trying to provide aid for the starving. They didn't want peace, democracy or any of that ****. They wanted their clan to win and the other clans to lose. And if stopping the aid convoys from getting food to those enemy clans was the only way to win, they were ready to make it happen, ready to die fighting our best troops backed by attack helicopters and APCs.

People are superstitious tribalists. Democracy comes about 37th, if that. Nobody wants to face that fact: we're tribal critters. We'll die for the tribe. More to the point, we'll kill for it. We don't care about democracy. And I'm not just talking here about people in tropical hellholes like Somalia, I mean your town, your street. Most Americans are the same as the Iraqi's.

Liberals however, are fearful of armed conflict and wish to surrender the a fraction of the population that remains loyal to Saddam or to the Islamic cause.

Loyal to Saddam or the Islamic Cause? OK, lets wake up to some reality here. The way you love your country is way deeper than how you feel about the people running the country. I hate W., the little draftdodging oil-money phony, but if any foreign army tried to "liberate" the US from him, I'd die trying to stop them. Do you realize how your country is so much to you, even if you hate the ****ers running it, you'd sooner have them than a bunch of foreign troops.

And then there's the wuss factor. Getting 'liberated' means you couldn't handle the situation yourself, you're a pussy. I've sat through a lot of action movies, and I didn't want to be the girl who gets rescued, I wanted to be the guy who rescues her. Getting liberated is like getting castrated: maybe it was necessary, but you have a hard time feeling grateful. Like the French when we liberated them from the Nazis. They thanked us, but....

Occupations always go bad, because armies aren't nice things. They were never meant to be. Armies are scary. Armies are where you dump all the guys you hated in high-school PE, the ones who thought it was so funny when you were too fat to do the rope climb. Or they're the guys who got an option from the judge, "Either you go to the pen or you join the Army." Now you've got 100,000 guys like that marching down Saddam Street. Foreign thugs with guns who don't speak a word of the local language. You really think you'd be cheering?

Right about now I can hear all you angry patriotic types limbering up your typin' fingers to send me messages like, "Saddam was a monster! Any Iraqi who'd rather have Saddam than the US Army is a loser raghead!"

Well, calm down and try to think like an Iraqi for a second. The thing is, Iraq ain't Ohio. THEY AIN'T LIKE US. Why is that so hard for people to get? Saddam probably seemed pretty familiar, pretty natural and cozy to your average Iraqi. Like the editorial-page types love to say, "Democracy is not an Iraqi tradition." So maybe they never saw why Saddam was so horrible. Just like most of you out there don't think it's so weird that a couple hundred oil-billionaires from Bakersfield and Texas own everything in America. Everybody's life feels natural to them, and that goes for Iraqis too.

[TVoffBrainOn]

I didn't grow up in any one place. My dad's profession reqired that we move every 4 to 6 years. And yes, I have lived in 23 states and there is only one that I have not visited.

Further, I stand by my position that in this country, if you are living in poverty, it is, in all likelyhood, due to your own bad decisions and or foolish actions.

So children born into poor families with no means made bad decisions? Get over your self righteous self

Richer areas of the country attract more qualified teachers, investors, businesses, etc. Those in poverty do not always end up there because of choices. They end up there because that's where they were born. The biggest problem with "your" conservatism is that you think the country is a reflection of YOU. You obviously never experienced Poverty, having moved around a lot and visited all gut 1 state.

You're right -- liberals do talk more about helping others, but that's where their sympathy for others end. Conservatives (especially Christians) are more charitable than liberals (as results from a study last year indicate). The reason for this is that liberals, contrary to their title, believe in big government, and thus, see it as the government's job to help everyone.

and Conservatives see it as the Gov't job to enrich the rich.

Dumbstuck? And who's being invaded? We removed their dictator, gave them free elections, countless personal liberties, and many other freedom which the vast majority of the population cherishes. The U.S. wants to get the hell out of there ASAP. We're certainly not invading or occupying.

you failed to mention the 600,000 that have died since we "liberated" them.

Liberals however, are fearful of armed conflict and wish to surrender the a fraction of the population that remains loyal to Saddam or to the Islamic cause.

really? that's like me interpreting the conservative position as wanting to carry out genocide against Islam in the name of Christianity.


Wrong. Our schools are the battleground for political indoctrination and liberals control this front overwhelmingly. The other battleground? The media.

What is the liberal control of education? Conservatives want god in schools because religion gives the conservative base the foundation to be followers and not thinkers.

Conservatism dominates the mainstream media.

Liberals are in control of the means to try and force beliefs on people, so it is absurd to suggest that conservatives even have the capability to force their beliefs on people.

Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Rupert Murdoch, please....

[Coyote]

You're right -- liberals do talk more about helping others, but that's where their sympathy for others end. Conservatives (especially Christians) are more charitable than liberals (as results from a study last year indicate). The reason for this is that liberals, contrary to their title, believe in big government, and thus, see it as the government's job to help everyone.


Actually, the results of that study are very deceptive. Conservative Christians give more to religious "charities" - ie, their churches, which are considered "charity" whether they go out and rebuild homes for Katrina victims or use it to build a new mega-church or buy a televangelist a new mansion.

I think overall you'll find little difference between the charitable efforts of conservatives or liberals. It's the individual, not the ideology, that matters.

[USMC the Almighty]

I think overall you'll find little difference between the charitable efforts of conservatives or liberals. It's the individual, not the ideology, that matters.

Ultimately, you're probably right. However, when you look at countries that are capitalist in nature verse those that are socialist -- there results are too glaring to ignore, and this has to do with ideology, in my opinio.

[Coyote]

Ultimately, you're probably right. However, when you look at countries that are capitalist in nature verse those that are socialist -- there results are too glaring to ignore, and this has to do with ideology, in my opinio.

Which countries do you consider socialist? For example - Norway is considered somewhat socialist (though still capitalist) and they are big charitable contributers worldwide.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/countries/charity.html

[TheWaffle]

Exactly what is to be gained if you fight for the other side when the other side is wrong? It is the lack of understanding and foresight that make liberals the kings of unintended consequences. They fight for policy and time after time see that policy do more damage than good and then expect to be judged on their intentions rather than their results.

Conservatives are not dumbstruck. Moderates are. Myself and every conservative I know predicted this and suggested going into iraq with overwhelming force, establishing a curfew very early on and killing anyone in violation.

Seat belt laws - helmet laws - laws that say that a business owner can't allow smoking in HIS OR HER own establishment - laws that make it illegal for me to carry more than 10K in cash - laws that require my bank to report me if I deposit more than 10K in cash - speech codes - laws that require me to get a building permit before building a structure on my own property that is more than 144 sauare feet - laws that prevent me from using my own property if it collects water from rain long enough to grow a certain kind of wetland grass - laws that prevent christmas displays - - - and the list can go on ad nauseum. There is a group that pushes their beliefs on everyone, but it is not conservatives.

That is support of a belief, not enacted law. Show me the trickle down law. Liberals support ideas like minimum wage which in effect, takes those who can very least afford to lose their jobs out of the job market because they lack the skills to be worth what liberals say they must earn.

Your good intentions are worth very little to those who lose their livelyood or can't get that first job because employers can't afford to pay all of the benefits that liberals demand.

There are very few living in poverty in this country whose poverty can't be traced back to their own foolish choices and decisions.

First: Foolish choices and decisions? Like being born in a poor neighborhood. Or being unable to afford a school that doesn't have a prevalence of drugs and weapons.

I spent an entire summer at a YMCA program working with middle school city kids and was amazed at their experience. These sixth graders had siblings in prison, friends who dealt drugs, their parents are treated like trash and these kids have to watch that (one kid's teacher called his father a 'vagabond'), they all go to public schools with metal detectors at the door because of the constant threat of gang violence.
Yes your right it's absolutely their own fault when they are denied the oppurtunities that are offered to those who aren't poverty-sticken.

Second: I worked at the minimum wage in my state for several months. At the slowest hours (in a movie theater there are not many people at 11:00 am on a tuesday) I dealt with atleast ten customers per hour. At peak hours I could deal with as many as 70 customers an hour. Each of these customers on average spent about $10. At slow hours it took 5 people to run the building, at peak it took between 12 and 14. Do you really think that one hour of a workers time is worth less than $7.25 an hour. Most workers will earn more for their company in ten seconds than they will earn themselves in the entire hour. To say that companies can't afford to pay $7.25 an hour is ridiculous.

Third: I'm not sure what you're talking about limiting Christmas displays. I don't know any law that limits someone's right to put those displays on your home or private property. Anyone who argues against that is no liberal. Also building laws are in place to make sure that someone just can't put a land fill in the middle of a residential neighborhood or something of the sort.

Fourth: the money limit is meant to combat crime, I'm not sure about you, but I haven't ever had to carry $10k around.

On Iraq. The majority of conservatives who I talked with claimed that there would be no insurgency, claiming that we would be greeted 'with flowers and parades.' I suppose this point was more between smart people and stupid people. Smart liberals and smart conservatives saw that there would be an insurgency.

Policy doing more damage than good is a constant in politics. That is not a liberal specific issue.

[TheWaffle]

You're right -- liberals do talk more about helping others, but that's where their sympathy for others end. Conservatives (especially Christians) are more charitable than liberals (as results from a study last year indicate). The reason for this is that liberals, contrary to their title, believe in big government, and thus, see it as the government's job to help everyone.

Conservatives believe in the sovereignty of the individual, and the virtues of self-reliance and personal responsibility where they are free to chose for themselves whether or not they wish to be charitable.

Dumbstuck? And who's being invaded? We removed their dictator, gave them free elections, countless personal liberties, and many other freedom which the vast majority of the population cherishes. The U.S. wants to get the hell out of there ASAP. We're certainly not invading or occupying.

Liberals however, are fearful of armed conflict and wish to surrender the a fraction of the population that remains loyal to Saddam or to the Islamic cause.

Wrong. Our schools are the battleground for political indoctrination and liberals control this front overwhelmingly. The other battleground? The media.

Liberals are in control of the means to try and force beliefs on people, so it is absurd to suggest that conservatives even have the capability to force their beliefs on people.

Liberals hate opposition and debate. If they had their way, the U.S. would be a 1 party system.

You clearly don't know a whole lot about conservative economics. The trickle-down is meant to use the rich as a vehicle for benefitting the poor.

And here's the fundamental difference. Liberals hate taking responsibility. It's always the fault of "the system" or "the man". It's never the individuals fault. They're not rich? Well obviously the system is prejudiced against them.


A: I am well aware of what the Trickle Down theory is. And while it's meant to use the wealthy as a vehicle to help the poor the fact is that it doesn't work. So while the policy benefits the wealthy whether it works or fails it craps on the poor because it doesn't work.

B: "it is absurd to suggest that conservatives even have the capability to force their beliefs on people." - Oh man this one is a gem. I don't think I need to say anything for everyone to recognize how ridiculous this statement is.

C: 'Who's getting invaded?' - I don't quite know where you've been but the Iraqis have been invaded. We established and organized their government and surpressed their media replacing it with our own. Sure we might eventually leave but we will certainly not have truly left. Especially with that beast of an embassy we are building there.
And as far as dumbstruck it seems that every member of this administration had no idea that an insurgency might develop.

D: "Liberals however, are fearful of armed conflict and wish to surrender the a fraction of the population that remains loyal to Saddam or to the Islamic cause." - I'm not even quite sure what this means...

I think TVoffBrain got it quite right. You rely on this straw-man version of liberalism that doesn't exist.

[palerider]

Not necessarily - sometimes yes, sometimes no. It's a bad idea to generalize. I've lived on both sides of the poverty issue. There was a good book I read looking at the complexity of poverty in America (without making judgements) - looking at geography, towns, following individual families and people, employers, employees and their skills and work ethics (or lack of them), and programs. It was called something like "The working poor in America". The problem is both Liberals and Conservatives tend to generalize when it comes to poverty.

The decision to stay in a geographical area that is depressed is also a decision that can lock one into poverty. There are very few who are poor in this country whose poverty can't be traced back to decisons and actions that they have made.

[palerider]

First: Foolish choices and decisions? Like being born in a poor neighborhood. Or being unable to afford a school that doesn't have a prevalence of drugs and weapons.

Wasn't it liberals who believe that drug dealers, etc are victims and have instituted a revolving door policy with regard to enforcing the law with them rather than putting them away at hard time for a very long time for violating the law?

I spent an entire summer at a YMCA program working with middle school city kids and was amazed at their experience. These sixth graders had siblings in prison, friends who dealt drugs, their parents are treated like trash and these kids have to watch that (one kid's teacher called his father a 'vagabond'), they all go to public schools with metal detectors at the door because of the constant threat of gang violence.
Yes your right it's absolutely their own fault when they are denied the oppurtunities that are offered to those who aren't poverty-sticken.

Haven't liberals established "understanding" policies towards gang members that have resulted in arresting and subsequently freeing them over and over rather than simply locking them away for a very long time?

Second: I worked at the minimum wage in my state for several months. At the slowest hours (in a movie theater there are not many people at 11:00 am on a tuesday) I dealt with atleast ten customers per hour. At peak hours I could deal with as many as 70 customers an hour. Each of these customers on average spent about $10. At slow hours it took 5 people to run the building, at peak it took between 12 and 14. Do you really think that one hour of a workers time is worth less than $7.25 an hour. Most workers will earn more for their company in ten seconds than they will earn themselves in the entire hour. To say that companies can't afford to pay $7.25 an hour is ridiculous.

A worker is only worth what s/he can produce per hour and your salary isn't the only expense associated with hiring you and if you think it is, you really don't know much about business.

It seems that by your own arguments, if one isn't a victim of his or her own choices and actions, then one is likely a victim of liberal policy if one is poor in this country.

[USMC the Almighty]

So children born into poor families with no means made bad decisions? Get over your self righteous self

Not what I'm saying. They certainly have more difficult circumstances to overcome but they are fortunate enough to live in a country where they have the opportunity to become successful.

and Conservatives see it as the Gov't job to enrich the rich.

Not this conservative. It's the invisible hand that should govern the economy.

you failed to mention the 600,000 that have died since we "liberated" them.

Where'd you get this estimate from? Does it include combatants as well? What are the criteria for identifying someone as a combatant vs. civilian?

really? that's like me interpreting the conservative position as wanting to carry out genocide against Islam in the name of Christianity.

Conservatism has nothing to do with Christianity so please stop trying to link the two. Conservatism is an ideology, whereas Christianity is a religion.

What is the liberal control of education? Conservatives want god in schools because religion gives the conservative base the foundation to be followers and not thinkers.

You're right -- some conservatives want God in schools. I personally think that the Creator's presence is very important and children should be taught about how the country was founded on the principle of power being transferred from this Creator to the people, and from the people to the government. But any specific religion -- no, that is theocracy.


Conservatism dominates the mainstream media.

Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Rupert Murdoch, please....

You're kidding right? The liberal slant is so well documented that I thought even liberals were now admitting the media's bias.

[TVoffBrainOn]

The decision to stay in a geographical area that is depressed is also a decision that can lock one into poverty. There are very few who are poor in this country whose poverty can't be traced back to decisons and actions that they have made.

"the decision to stay in a geographical area" :confused:

It's that mentality that represents everything that is ugly about your ideology.

[palerider]

"the decision to stay in a geographical area" :confused:

It's that mentality that represents everything that is wrong with your ideology.

The flood of penniless illegals who move about this country at will are evidence enough that one has the choice to move if one wants to improve one's position. The idea that one is trapped in whatever situation one is born to is what is wrong with your mentality.

[TVoffBrainOn]

Not what I'm saying. They certainly have more difficult circumstances to overcome but they are fortunate enough to live in a country where they have the opportunity to become successful.



Not this conservative. It's the invisible hand that should govern the economy.



Where'd you get this estimate from? Does it include combatants as well? What are the criteria for identifying someone as a combatant vs. civilian?



Conservatism has nothing to do with Christianity so please stop trying to link the two. Conservatism is an ideology, whereas Christianity is a religion.



You're right -- some conservatives want God in schools. I personally think that the Creator's presence is very important and children should be taught about how the country was founded on the principle of power being transferred from this Creator to the people, and from the people to the government. But any specific religion -- no, that is theocracy.



You're kidding right? The liberal slant is so well documented that I thought even liberals were now admitting the media's bias.


Do you believe that your version of Conservatism exists today? within the current administration? within the past republican controlled congress?

[TVoffBrainOn]

The flood of penniless illegals who move about this country at will are evidence enough that one has the choice to move if one wants to improve one's position. The idea that one is trapped in whatever situation one is born to is what is wrong with your mentality.

Such generality. Maybe you should've opened your eyes when your were moving around the country.

[Justinian]

I personally do not back the current conservative ideology in the white house which is neo conservatism. And I never said I didn't believe there was going to be an insurgency and I think the insurgency was formed more greatly for other two reasons you failed to mention. I still believe Liberals do not understand conservatism but conservatives understand liberalism. It's almost like the battle between good and evil unless you're a neocon which is not conservatism. It's really the Democrats' old ideology repackaged. Paleoconservatism, the real conservative ideology which I follow is currently in the back seat of mainstream politics, a fact I'm not very happy with and am concearned about.

[USMC the Almighty]

Do you believe that your version of Conservatism exists today? within the current administration? within the past republican controlled congress?

Yes, no, no.

[TVoffBrainOn]

Yes, no, no.

well that's a start.

[USMC the Almighty]

well that's a start.

A start with what? With the spending and increase size of gov't over the past 6 years, there is no way anyone could call that "conservative".

[TheWaffle]

Wasn't it liberals who believe that drug dealers, etc are victims and have instituted a revolving door policy with regard to enforcing the law with them rather than putting them away at hard time for a very long time for violating the law?

Haven't liberals established "understanding" policies towards gang members that have resulted in arresting and subsequently freeing them over and over rather than simply locking them away for a very long time?

It seems that by your own arguments, if one isn't a victim of his or her own choices and actions, then one is likely a victim of liberal policy if one is poor in this country.


A worker is only worth what s/he can produce per hour and your salary isn't the only expense associated with hiring you and if you think it is, you really don't know much about business.

A. Do you think I'm retarded? The point is that if the business is at its worst hours making $200 an hour, and paying 5 employees. Between associates, supervisors, and managers the pay averages to about $10/hr. That's $50/hr in wages. Leaving $150/hr to pay for electricity, maitenance (which is mostly done by the employees on the clock anyway), this at minimum profit hours [at peak hours the place probably makes at least 20 times that, that's $3000/hr while paying $140/hr in wages, leaving $2860/hr for electricity, maitenance, and all other expenses]. My point is that increasing wages by as much as 20% would have almost 0 effect on the employer while making a significant difference in the lives of the employees.

B. Wasn't it conservatives who made forgiving policies so that sleaze bags like Ex-Governor Roland who cheated the citizens of connecticut out of millions of dollars only got sentenced to 1 year in prison. How about all the political dirt-bags who embezzle American dollars (an offense tantamount to treason in my mind) and then get a second chance. Our system is designed to give people a second chance. That is why second time offenses are treated so much more seriously. I stand by a system where we give people the chance to fix their lives as opposed to locking them away for their whole lives based on one stupid decision that based on their surroundings seemed like a necessary decision.

[Justinian]

You're forgetting that conservatives and liberals are entirely different people with entirely different lifestyles who advocate entirely different countries.

[Justinian]

MOST Iraqis love Americans and love the troops. We liberated them from an oppressive dictator. You're allowing the violent 15 or so percent to speak for the overwhelming majorirty, and that's intellectually dishonest.

Sublime is intellectually dishonest. The left is anti-principle which dictates they must be dishonest. They use reason over rationale. Sublime is more than not dishonest and manipulative. He must attack what is right to then hopefully help the installation of a new system that people are manipulated to believe is right. The sad part is at this late in the game, Sublime denies such a system is only destined to fail which people predicted more than a hundred years ago and is happening now.

[Justinian]

In Defense of the practices of our ancestors, of the the undeniable and inescapable nature of Conservatism I will post the real truth of Conservatism which is based on Rationale and not dishonest Reason by Atheist hecklers like Sublime.

These are basic understandings of Conservatives to one degree or another

(1) Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience. Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems. A narrow rationality, whatColeridge called the understanding, cannot of itself satisfy human needs. "Every Tory is a realist," says Keither Feiling: says Keith Feiling: "he knows that there are great forces in heaven and earth that man's philosophy cannot plumb or fathom." True politics is the art of apprehending and applying the jusitce which ought to prevail in a community of souls.
(2) Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to the narrowing uniformity, egalitraianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems; conservatives resist what Robert Graves calls "Logicalism" in society. This prejudice has been called "the conservatism of enjoyment"- a sense that life is worth living, according to Walter Bagehot "the proper source of an animated Conservatism."
(3) Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes, as against the notion of a "Classless society." With reason, conservatives often have been called "the party of order". If natural distinctions are effeced among men, oligarchs fill the vaccum. Ultimate equality in the judgement of God, and equality before courts or law, are recognized by conservatives, but equality of condition, they think, means equality in servitude and boredom.
(4) Persuasion that freedom and property are closely linked: separate property from private possession, and leviathan becomes master of all. Economic levelling, they maintain, is not economic progress.
(5) Faith in prescription and distrust of "Sophisters, calculators, economists and theologists" who would reconstruct society upon abstract designs. Custom, convention, and old prescription are checks both upon man's anarchic impulse and upon the innovator's lust for power.
(6) Recognition that change may not be salutary reform: hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress. Society must alter, for prudent change is the means of social preservation; but a statesman must take Providence into his calculations, and a statesman's chief virtue, according to Plato and Burke is prudence.

These are the basic Assertions of Radicalism and are the foundations for their attack (which this post by Sublime as most of the rest of his certainly are) to the prescriptive arrangement of society:

(1)The Perfectability of man and the illimitable progress of society: meliorism. Radicals believe that education, positive legislation, and alteration of environment can produce men like gods; they deny that humanity has a natural proclivity toward violence and sin.
(2) Contempt for tradition. Reason, impulse, and materialistic determinism are severally preferred as guides to social welfare, trustier than the wisdom of our ancestors. Formal religion is rejected and variousl ideologies are presented as substitutes.
(3) Political levelling. Order and priviliege are condemened; total democracy, as direct as practicable, is the professed radical ideal. Allied with this spirit, generally, is a dislike of old parliamentary arrangements and an eagerness for centralization and consolidation.
(4) Economic levelling . The ancient rights of property, especially property in land, are suspect to almost all radicals; and collectivistic reformers hack at the institution of private property root and branch.
(5) Radicals unite in detesting Burke's description of the state as ordained of God, and his concept of society as joined in perpetuity by a moral bond among the dead, the living, and those yet to be born- the community of souls.

[Dr.Who]

Its humourous but at the same time quite true.

It is humorous and it does have truth in it. But if you think that it is true then you are misguided. There is just as much that misrepresents the conservatives.

[ChairmanMeow]

Typical conservative!