It must be difficult to be a conservative today.

[PLC1]

Of course, it used to be easy. Favor a limited government, individual liberty, fiscal responsibility, balanced budget, and low taxes, and you could claim membership in the conservative fraternity. Today, however, things have changed.

Today, in order to be a true conservative, it is necessary to believe in individual liberty and limited government, while simultaneously engaging in the Orwellian doublethink of believing that that same government should regulate who can marry, and decide when a pregnant woman must bear the child.

A true conservative must dismiss scientific research in the age of the internet and space travel in order to believe that global climate change is not real and that evolution is a flawed theory.

A real conservative must believe in the tenth amendment, while at the same time thinking that the federal government should initiate a voucher system to save the public school system.

A true, blue conservative still belies in limited government, but that deficit spending is not a problem. It is expected, in fact, that a real conservative still thinks that trickle down theory, aka voodoo economics, is a viable theory.

A real conservative must refuse to take the burden of employee health insurance off of American enterprise, while at the same time being in pro business.

Finally, a conservative must believe that the Republican Party is the conservative party, despite their penchant for government growth.

No wonder conservatives are so rare these days.

 

[Andy]

Of course, it used to be easy. Favor a limited government, individual liberty, fiscal responsibility, balanced budget, and low taxes, and you could claim membership in the conservative fraternity. Today, however, things have changed.

Today, in order to be a true conservative, it is necessary to believe in individual liberty and limited government, while simultaneously engaging in the Orwellian doublethink of believing that that same government should regulate who can marry, and decide when a pregnant woman must bear the child.

Conservatives have always believed that murder is wrong, and that marriage is defined by G-d, not man, and thus isn't subject to be changed.

A true conservative must dismiss scientific research in the age of the internet and space travel in order to believe that global climate change is not real and that evolution is a flawed theory.

No conservative believes global climate isn't changing. It's always been changing. We just mathematically realize it's isn't possible that our little carbon is the cause. Evolution is flawed based on science. When people understand science, they understand evolution is a farce.

A real conservative must believe in the tenth amendment, while at the same time thinking that the federal government should initiate a voucher system to save the public school system.

Conservatives differ on this. It isn't set in stone. I for one have no intention of saving the public schools. If it were left to me, I'd bulldoze them all down.

A true, blue conservative still belies in limited government, but that deficit spending is not a problem. It is expected, in fact, that a real conservative still thinks that trickle down theory, aka voodoo economics, is a viable theory.

Trickle down is the way all economies work. The fact you don't know this suggests you know little of economics. No conservative believes deficit spending isn't a problem. On the other hand Obama has no problem with deficits at all. Does that mean Obama is a true blue conservative?

A real conservative must refuse to take the burden of employee health insurance off of American enterprise, while at the same time being in pro business.

If by taking the burden off American enterprise, you mean to socialize it so people die on waiting lists, I'll pass thanks.

Finally, a conservative must believe that the Republican Party is the conservative party, despite their penchant for government growth.

I give credit the republicans when they do conservative things, and complain when they do things liberal.

No wonder conservatives are so rare these days.

Ignorance is so common these days, it's no wonder so many are liberal.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Conservatives have always believed that murder is wrong...

ooooooooooooooo.....you certainly deserve a monstrous Atta-Boy!!, for that one.

....and that marriage is defined by G-d, not man....

Yeah....."conservatives" are reeeaaallly consistant about Marriage.

"So many Christians try to rationalize this but it is clear that a true follower of Jesus can neither divorce someone nor marry someone who is divorced."

Ignorance is so common these days, it's no wonder so many are liberal.

We Libs can't take total-credit, for that. We've gotta give FAUX Noise their due.

 

[Pandora]

Of course, it used to be easy. Favor a limited government, individual liberty, fiscal responsibility, balanced budget, and low taxes, and you could claim membership in the conservative fraternity. Today, however, things have changed.

Today, in order to be a true conservative, it is necessary to believe in individual liberty and limited government, while simultaneously engaging in the Orwellian doublethink of believing that that same government should regulate who can marry, and decide when a pregnant woman must bear the child.

A true conservative must dismiss scientific research in the age of the internet and space travel in order to believe that global climate change is not real and that evolution is a flawed theory.

A real conservative must believe in the tenth amendment, while at the same time thinking that the federal government should initiate a voucher system to save the public school system.

A true, blue conservative still belies in limited government, but that deficit spending is not a problem. It is expected, in fact, that a real conservative still thinks that trickle down theory, aka voodoo economics, is a viable theory.

A real conservative must refuse to take the burden of employee health insurance off of American enterprise, while at the same time being in pro business.

Finally, a conservative must believe that the Republican Party is the conservative party, despite their penchant for government growth.

No wonder conservatives are so rare these days.

Conservative and Republican are two different things. I am a conservative but I am a dem. If I would be able to vote in primarys I would be indy.

you shove all republicans and conservatives in a very small box then warp and twist the differnt meanings.

no one on earth would be a conservative if it was the way you described it.

good thing its not. there are many conservative republicans and demorcats and indys who do not think anything like the wierd stuff you posted

 

[Lagboltz]

Conservative and Republican are two different things. I am a conservative but I am a dem. If I would be able to vote in primarys I would be indy.

I am a fiscal conservative, but a social and religious liberal. It's hard to put that in a box too. I think Andy's post above comes very close to PLC1's vision of a thoroughbred conservative.

you shove all republicans and conservatives in a very small box then warp and twist the differnt meanings.

no one on earth would be a conservative if it was the way you described it.

good thing its not. there are many conservative republicans and demorcats and indys who do not think anything like the wierd stuff you posted

I agree that often both liberals and conservatives exaggerate traits or use a biased labeling of them, put them all in one box, and implicitly assume that every person on the other side believes all of them.

PLC has listed common traits, but it also shows why the conservatives are losing ground. Conservatives are splintering into segments and will not have a common message that indy's can accept.

The Republican party has attracted both religious conservatives and fiscal conservatives. The two are largely disjoint concepts. When these splinter, the GOP is doomed.

 

[PLC1]

I am a fiscal conservative, but a social and religious liberal. It's hard to put that in a box too. I think Andy's post above comes very close to PLC1's vision of a thoroughbred conservative.

I think so, too. Thanks for that, Andy.

I agree that often both liberals and conservatives exaggerate traits or use a biased labeling of them, put them all in one box, and implicitly assume that every person on the other side believes all of them.

Exactly one of the points I made in the OP. Few people believe all of the "conservative" points.

PLC has listed common traits, but it also shows why the conservatives are losing ground. Conservatives are splintering into segments and will not have a common message that indy's can accept.

The Republican party has attracted both religious conservatives and fiscal conservatives. The two are largely disjoint concepts. When these splinter, the GOP is doomed.

Exactly. There really is no connection between the values of religious conservatives and fiscal conservatives.

Posted by NO Obamanation

Conservative and Republican are two different things. I am a conservative but I am a dem. If I would be able to vote in primarys I would be indy.

Yes, they are two different things. The modern Republican party doesn't resemble real conservatism, yet they seem to try to espouse the anti science and authoritarian principles I've described.

I would be indy, also if I could vote in the primaries. I've been a registered Republican for years, but largely vote and think as an independent.

Really, more as a libertarian than anything, but that party plays a pretty small role in government currently.

you shove all republicans and conservatives in a very small box then warp and twist the differnt meanings.

no one on earth would be a conservative if it was the way you described it.

And, yet, there are those who to try to be as I describe it. Not many, but can we not see that pols who fail on one or more of the points I described are not considered "real" conservatives?

good thing its not. there are many conservative republicans and demorcats and indys who do not think anything like the wierd stuff you posted

Weird stuff? Well, I suppose it is weird stuff, yet it describes a certain political philosophy that has some influence in US politics, doesn't it?

 

[Andy]

ooooooooooooooo.....you certainly deserve a monstrous Atta-Boy!!, for that one.

I suppose that is amazing given you liberals clearly don't.

Yeah....."conservatives" are reeeaaallly consistant about Marriage.

"So many Christians try to rationalize this but it is clear that a true follower of Jesus can neither divorce someone nor marry someone who is divorced."

I'm surprised you were able to quote something true once. Conservatives are not generally consistent on this. The problem is, you assume everyone who is conservative, is a follower of Jesus. This is not so. Nor are religious people automatically conservative. Go watch a Rev Wright video.

That said, the difference between same-sex marriage, and remarriage is massive. There are specific exceptions under biblical teaching for remarriage, and for divorce. There are zero for same-sex marriage.

We Libs can't take total-credit, for that. We've gotta give FAUX Noise their due.

Oh do tell... if not for fox news (I can spell it right) putting out all those false quotes from Ann Coulter, you would have brilliantly figured out the one you spewed was fabricated... right? You get all your misinformation from fox... of course.

 

[Andy]

I think so, too. Thanks for that, Andy.

No problem. I stand for truth.

Exactly. There really is no connection between the values of religious conservatives and fiscal conservatives.

Math is a very hard thing to argue with. This is why there is a middle ground of social liberals who see the truth of conservative economics. Religious conservatives, I'm convinced, is a fairly false notion. Most of the religious people I see are not very conservative.

For example, Pat Robertson was against Clinton's impeachment over felonies, was for China's most favored nation status, and spoke favorably to China's one child policy. That's just a small example, but there are others.

Mike Huckabee is another great example. Boosting taxes, increasing spending on all kinds of social programs. The predictable resulting deficits were normal under such liberal policies.

Yes, they are two different things. The modern Republican party doesn't resemble real conservatism, yet they seem to try to espouse the anti science and authoritarian principles I've described.

I don't see supporting the meaning of marriage, as being authoritarian. If I were to enforce my view that marriage means something else, say... between twe men or women, that's authoritarian. You are forcing your views on the rest of us. But to simply say that marriage means, what is has always meant, one man, one women, that is simply keeping things true.

I also do not see how supporting the scientific truth about various issue is assumed by you to be anti-science. Unless you are playing the bigot and assuming everyone but you is wrong.

And, yet, there are those who to try to be as I describe it. Not many, but can we not see that pols who fail on one or more of the points I described are not considered "real" conservatives?

Conservatism, is what it is. Someone can be conservative on a few points, and liberal on some others.

 

[PLC1]

Conservatism, is what it is. Someone can be conservative on a few points, and liberal on some others.

The various and sundry issues on which "conservatives" are supposed to take the same side are not really related. Some, in fact, are opposites. There really is no such thing as a "conservative" to "liberal" continuum.

For example, do you think that someone who favors a balanced budget and is pro choice is more or less conservative than someone who likes big government programs and is pro life?

 

[Andy]

The various and sundry issues on which "conservatives" are supposed to take the same side are not really related. Some, in fact, are opposites. There really is no such thing as a "conservative" to "liberal" continuum.

For example, do you think that someone who favors a balanced budget and is pro choice is more or less conservative than someone who likes big government programs and is pro life?

Oh I see. You are pointing out that the various views on issues are not cohesively related.

Why certain views fit together more than others... ah not sure. I'll take a stab at it. A person who supports pro-life, has moral standards that govern their world view. That same moral standard may also view taxation as theft, and government programs as handing out other peoples money to those who haven't earned it.

One might also conclude that those with no moral restraint on themselves, tend to be fast and loose with their finances, and thus always in massive debt. Similarly those same people in government would have no problem borrowing the nation into debt.

It should be noted that in the first 150 years of our country, debt was considered shameful and even sinful. Similarly, with that moral view, our countries national debt was very low, and considered something to avoid.

These are just guesses though. Just curious, which issues of the conservative view would you consider opposites?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

You get all your misinformation from fox... of course.

Hey....we Libs need some source, to see what "conservatives" are thinking, or....supposed to be thinking.

 

[PLC1]

Oh I see. You are pointing out that the various views on issues are not cohesively related.

Exactly.

Why certain views fit together more than others... ah not sure. I'll take a stab at it. A person who supports pro-life, has moral standards that govern their world view. That same moral standard may also view taxation as theft, and government programs as handing out other peoples money to those who haven't earned it.

It is one thing to have high moral standards. To wish to impose those standards on society at large by force of law is quite another.

Conservatism as a philosophy would logically hold that handing out other people's money to those who haven't earned it is reprehensible. They would be in favor of low taxes. Whether or not a conservative would view taxation as "theft" or not is debatable. The government does need money to operate. The government, the federal government in particular, shouldn't collect taxes or borrow money in order to take on tasks not mandated by the Constitution. All of that is consistent with conservatism. Moral standards, however, are personal and not to be mandated by the government, according to that same philosophy.

One might also conclude that those with no moral restraint on themselves, tend to be fast and loose with their finances, and thus always in massive debt. Similarly those same people in government would have no problem borrowing the nation into debt.

And yet, it seems to be the self described "conservatives" who champion tax cuts without corresponding cuts in government expense, and bring about huge deficits.

Wasn't it the conservative administration and conservative Congress that presided over the growth of government for the six years following the Clinton Administration? Didn't they also pass tax cuts, and simply borrow the difference?

It should be noted that in the first 150 years of our country, debt was considered shameful and even sinful. Similarly, with that moral view, our countries national debt was very low, and considered something to avoid.

And, should still be something to avoid. Fiscal restraint is the core of conservative philosophy, isn't it?

These are just guesses though. Just curious, which issues of the conservative view would you consider opposites?

Check my opening post.

 

[Andy]

Exactly. It is one thing to have high moral standards. To wish to impose those standards on society at large by force of law is quite another. Conservatism as a philosophy would logically hold that handing out other people's money to those who haven't earned it is reprehensible. They would be in favor of low taxes. Whether or not a conservative would view taxation as "theft" or not is debatable. The government does need money to operate. The government, the federal government in particular, shouldn't collect taxes or borrow money in order to take on tasks not mandated by the Constitution. All of that is consistent with conservatism. Moral standards, however, are personal and not to be mandated by the government, according to that same philosophy.

Thou shalt not murder, is a moral standard, and is enforced by government. Many other governments, who didn't have this standard, didn't have a problem with murder.

And yet, it seems to be the self described "conservatives" who champion tax cuts without corresponding cuts in government expense, and bring about huge deficits.

Bush has routinely pushed for curbing spending. Reagan also pushed for cutting spending. In fact, when Reagan passed his tax cutting bills, he pushed for Congress to agree to cut spending by $2 dollars, per $1 dollar of cutting taxes. The problem was, congress didn't follow suit.

You are not a conservative because you say "I'm a conservative". You are what your actions show. Bush has been conservative on a select few issues, and very liberal on some others.

Wasn't it the conservative administration and conservative Congress that presided over the growth of government for the six years following the Clinton Administration? Didn't they also pass tax cuts, and simply borrow the difference?

You fail to realize that economic growth from tax cuts, routinely bring in more cash than if they had never been cut.

Tax increases never bring in as much money as claimed, and cuts rarely if ever, reduce the money generated. Why? Because like supply and demand the world over, when cost is increased, activity is reduced. And inversely, when cost is decreased, activity increases.

That said, Clinton's own administration agreed that the Reagan tax cuts of the 80s, are what sparked the long economic growth. Further, the tax hikes of the Bush Sr. administration, caused a recession. (none of which is a shock to anyone versed in economics).

And, should still be something to avoid. Fiscal restraint is the core of conservative philosophy, isn't it?

Yes... I missed the point, unless you refer to the theory that the republican party is automagically conservative. A theory I reject. I have no problem voting for a democrat, on the rare chance one might be a decent conservative. James Traficant is still my favorite ex-democrat.

Mr. Speaker, who is kidding whom? The only surplus in Washington, D.C., is in the Social Security trust fund.

The truth is, Social Security money coming in one door today is going out the other door tomorrow, because the facts are very clear. The Social Security trust fund is a big basket full of IOUs. The reason is very simple: Politicians from both parties have reached in and borrowed money from the Social Security trust fund and have not repaid it. Billions and billions of dollars.

Beam me up. Now we are saying Social Security is going to run out of money. I say not one dime of Social Security should be used for anything but Social Security.

I yield back any economic common sense that may be left down here.

-James Traficant March 3, 1999

That said, you seem to imply that simply because a republican doesn't always follow these to the letter, means that conservative has changed? I think not.

Check my opening post.

I did. None are mutually opposing other than the false assumption that republicans are automagically conservatives, which they are not.

 

[PLC1]

Thou shalt not murder, is a moral standard, and is enforced by government. Many other governments, who didn't have this standard, didn't have a problem with murder.

What government doesn't have a law against murder? The question is, is aborting a zygote that only can be seen in a microscope "murder"? The following question is, just at what point does a fetus become a human being? That question has not been answered, and probably never will be.

I'm not arguing in favor of abortion, you understand, but against the idea that you or I have the authority to decide, then impose our decision on the rest of society. This issue is not a liberal vs conservative issue at all, but an authoritarian vs libertarian one.

Bush has routinely pushed for curbing spending. Reagan also pushed for cutting spending. In fact, when Reagan passed his tax cutting bills, he pushed for Congress to agree to cut spending by $2 dollars, per $1 dollar of cutting taxes. The problem was, congress didn't follow suit.

If that is so, then Reagan and Bush are fiscal conservatives. What does that have to do with stem cell research? With defining marriage?

You are not a conservative because you say "I'm a conservative". You are what your actions show. Bush has been conservative on a select few issues, and very liberal on some others.

Bush has espoused a "liberal" position on most issues that really count. He has championed some so called "conservative" issues. Those issues are still unrelated. He didn't veto a single spending bill in six years, for example (liberal?). He did veto stem cell research (conservative?) What is the connection between those two issues?

You fail to realize that economic growth from tax cuts, routinely bring in more cash than if they had never been cut.

Tax increases never bring in as much money as claimed, and cuts rarely if ever, reduce the money generated. Why? Because like supply and demand the world over, when cost is increased, activity is reduced. And inversely, when cost is decreased, activity increases.

That is the trickle down economic theory that has resulted in record breaking deficits. It is based on the wishful thinking that we can cut taxes, increase spending, and still balance the budget and pay our obligations. Sure, tax cuts are popular, while spending cuts are not. Is cutting taxes and increasing spending really a conservative principle?

That said, Clinton's own administration agreed that the Reagan tax cuts of the 80s, are what sparked the long economic growth. Further, the tax hikes of the Bush Sr. administration, caused a recession. (none of which is a shock to anyone versed in economics).

So, cutting taxes and expecting the economy to respond by increasing revenue appears to be a conservative idea. What, again, does it have to do with social issues?

Yes... I missed the point, unless you refer to the theory that the republican party is automagically conservative. A theory I reject. I have no problem voting for a democrat, on the rare chance one might be a decent conservative. James Traficant is still my favorite ex-democrat.

​

-James Traficant March 3, 1999

That said, you seem to imply that simply because a republican doesn't always follow these to the letter, means that conservative has changed? I think not.

The Republican Party is not necessarily the party of conservatives, on that we can agree.

I did. None are mutually opposing other than the false assumption that republicans are automagically conservatives, which they are not.

OK. let's start with this one:

Today, in order to be a true conservative, it is necessary to believe in individual liberty and limited government, while simultaneously engaging in the Orwellian doublethink of believing that that same government should regulate who can marry, and decide when a pregnant woman must bear the child.

Is it conservative to believe in limited government and individual responsibility, or is it conservative to expect the government to regulate personal choices such as child bearing and marriage?

 

[Andy]

What government doesn't have a law against murder? The question is, is aborting a zygote that only can be seen in a microscope "murder"? The following question is, just at what point does a fetus become a human being? That question has not been answered, and probably never will be.

Is it human? Do a DNA test. Yes it is. Is it alive? Yes, dead things do not grow. Has it done anything worthy of death? No, it hasn't had the chance. Alright... case closed.

If that is so, then Reagan and Bush are fiscal conservatives. What does that have to do with stem cell research? With defining marriage?

Nice deflection from your claim that both supported massive increases in spending. The answer to your question is nothing.

Bush has espoused a "liberal" position on most issues that really count. He has championed some so called "conservative" issues. Those issues are still unrelated. He didn't veto a single spending bill in six years, for example (liberal?). He did veto stem cell research (conservative?) What is the connection between those two issues?

Conservatives are generally for less government, and less government hand outs. Stem cell funding is unnecessary. That's all.

That is the trickle down economic theory that has resulted in record breaking deficits. It is based on the wishful thinking that we can cut taxes, increase spending, and still balance the budget and pay our obligations. Sure, tax cuts are popular, while spending cuts are not. Is cutting taxes and increasing spending really a conservative principle?

Trickle down economics is how economies work. It has nothing to do with deficits or federal spending. If you earn $25K/yr and spend $35K, you will be $10K in the hole. If you get a new job and the next year you earn $45K and spend $65K, you'll be $20K in the hole.

What's the point? You can't blame the new job for the massive deficit. What control does your pay rate have on your spending habits? Zero. What control does a taxation method have on government spending? Zero. This is basic logic 101.

Further... and this is where ignorance reigns... trickle down economics is not a method of taxation. As the name implies, it's an economic model. Specifically it's the model of economics that all economies follow.

The basic premise is this... nearly all jobs are created by the wealthy, and thus all economic activity trickles down from the top. My job was created by a very wealthy man. As were most jobs on the face of the earth. Even the self employed farmer... who built the equipment he uses? Wealthy people. Who made the fertilizer he uses? Wealthy people. Who made the pesticides he uses? Wealthy people. Who made the trucks and provided the transport of his crops to market? Wealthy people. Who made the stores his produce is sold in? Wealthy people.

This is how all economies work. Claiming trickle down doesn't work is like claiming oceans are not wet. Dave Thomas got backing by wealthy people to open his own resturant, and used that to hire people. When he had enough money from his investment, he opened up new burger stands that employed more people. Trickle down to Dave, to his employees, to new stores, to their employees and so on.

Trickle down is a near universal truth, unless your talking about a 3rd world country with some sort of quasi-feudal system, or if you are a leftist who values political points over truth.

So, cutting taxes and expecting the economy to respond by increasing revenue appears to be a conservative idea. What, again, does it have to do with social issues?

Cutting taxes always has a positive effect. It has nothing directly to do with social issues.

Is it conservative to believe in limited government and individual responsibility, or is it conservative to expect the government to regulate personal choices such as child bearing and marriage?

The ability to redefine marriage is a right a limited government does not have. These are not opposed. It is a view that government should be limited, that suggest it can't simply redefine marriage. Nor should a limited government enforce it's view of marriage on the population.

The right to murder in order to avoid responsibility for getting pregnant, is opposed to individual responsibility. Further, the rule of law, that murder is, or should be, illegal in all situation, is enforcing personal responsibility for ones actions.

Until personal choice, exempts one from murder laws, it is not a regulation of "personal choice" to prevent murder anymore than it is a regulation of personal choice to stop someone from going on a shooting spree through a local mall. The difference being the people in the mall may have done something wrong in their lives, where as the baby never had the chance.

Neither are opposing views. Both are completely consistent.