Conservatism

[TradeTheBeal!]

10 minutes ago, BornaSkinsFan83 said:

RIP

 

DNR

[BornaSkinsFan83]

Hell as far as im concened, the only conservatives left in this country are me, my fellow libtards and various forms of Never Trump. We're the ones trying to save this country, to conserve its democracy, its institutions, its history and traditions and everything else. So which side really has the traditional American values these days? 

 

I swear as I've gotten older and older, i really do feel more and more conservative. But not how you would expect. My views haven't changed much at all. It's just as the right gets more and more ****ed in the head, I'm honest to God feeling like the real conservative these days. Funny how that works. 

 

There's nothing conservative about fascism. 

[Hersh]

4 hours ago, B&G said:

Liberals seem to be a little confused about just what conservative values are.  Here are a few very general points.

 

First thing is that all conservatives don't believe the exact same things in a political sense.  There are a few principles upon which most believe and I'll try to list them in this post.

 

 

 

Respectfully, how many conservatives do you think exist in America based on your guide of what a conservative is? 

 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, B&G said:

Conservatives want clean air, water, and a clean planet just as much as liberals do.  Conservatives are unwilling, however, to set back America's standard of living by 100 years to gain some unquantifiable environmental gain.  In this area, Conservatives are moderate rather than radical as some of our liberal friends seem to be.

 

 

 

This shows an incredible amount of ignorance so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and guess that the intent of your post was to troll people. 

[tshile]

6 hours ago, skinny21 said:

Yeah, I'm with others that the main problem is that the GOP is a pathetic shade of conservative ideals... and yet many who consider themselves conservative stick with them.  

 

It's not like there's been much choice.

 

The Democrats certainly don't appeal to them. Most democrats basically refer to conservatives as dumb, racist, bigots, etc. Is there any real surprise they at least stick with the party that doesn't constantly berate them (even if it doesn't really support what it claims to)?

 

The other option, that I would prefer, is to spin off into a new party but people are lazy and there would be a lot of money you'd have to fight with. So, probably not going to happen.

 

At best they can stay home and not vote and hope the gop figures it out and changes. But, again, this essentially helps put people in power that are diametrically opposed to them.

 

This is the problem with first past the post.

[redskinss]

10 hours ago, B&G said:

 Additionally, most of the laws offered by the left would be absolutely ignored by criminals and are thus self defeating.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More and more lately I've been getting tired of new rules regulating our actions as opposed to the result of our actions but this argument is ridiculous.

You could argue this point about any law we have.

 

[LD0506]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

 

It's not like there's been much choice.

 

The Democrats certainly don't appeal to them. Most democrats basically refer to conservatives as dumb, racist, bigots, etc. Is there any real surprise they at least stick with the party that doesn't constantly berate them (even if it doesn't really support what it claims to)?

 

The other option, that I would prefer, is to spin off into a new party but people are lazy and there would be a lot of money you'd have to fight with. So, probably not going to happen.

 

At best they can stay home and not vote and hope the gop figures it out and changes. But, again, this essentially helps put people in power that are diametrically opposed to them.

 

This is the problem with first past the post.

 

 

And this IMO touches upon the nub of the problem, politics and politicians do not "represent" people in any way shape or form. They are divorced from the concept of public service.

 

The vast middle of American society, if given the opportunity to turn off the TVs and actually talk, would find a huge % of opinion and belief in common. More importantly, there is a vast reservoir of tolerance and acceptance between people of differing ideas, political, social, religious, etc., but the powers that be have used the media apparatus to recruit virtually everyone to one side or the other.

 

I hope, and perhaps I admit to a certain level of naiveté by even using the word, that we as a nation and as a a people, as a collection of so many differing peoples, will find our way out of the situation we are currently in and will be better for it, reaffirming the principles we share and that gave us the opportunity to be Americans.

 

There is no shame in becoming wealthy and successful in America, but there is if that has no underlying ethos or morality to it, if the $$$ are all that matters. I don't see morality as some monopoly of the religious, far from it, and in so many ways we seem to have lost sight of that. Character matters, principles matter, being a responsible human being matters, and I cannot see those that would poison and pollute the environment for a quick buck as followers of that. Those who would manipulate the markets and economy to the detriment of others to make a quick buck are not moral or principled. Those who scorn and abuse others based on ideology are not moral. And in terms of this thread, those that would lay claim to higher causes or divine guidance to justify their piggish greed and indefensible behaviors are not moral.

 

Collectively we are challenged by the state of our society, we have brought this to pass and are responsible for it and for rebuilding faith, not the faith sold by TV preachers but the faith in America herself, faith in those ideals that allowed us to flourish. If the so-called "conservatives" are so hellbent on Constitutional literalism and first principles, where is the faith in those ideals, the allegiance to the country, the truth behind the patriotism?

[Riggo-toni]

In the 80s and 90s, people labeled me as conservative or often ultra-conservative. Now all the Republicans I know accuse me of being a liberal. The only things I've changed my position on are global warming and the death penalty.

Two candidates for president in a GoP primary. One as governor has a record of tax reform and spending restraint, and his state finished top of the country in economic growth, but he is for civil unions for same sex couples as a basic human rights issue...so he is written off as moderate.  The second as a member of congress was one of its most profligate spenders, sponsoring over 50 spending bills but never a single deficit reduction measure.  He voted for No Child Left Behind. But...every time a microphone is in front of him he denounces gay marriage and abortion, so he gets endorsed by the Tea Party as the race's one true conservative.

[TradeTheBeal!]

9 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said:

In the 80s and 90s, people labeled me as conservative or often ultra-conservative. Now all the Republicans I know accuse me of being a liberal. The only things I've changed my position on are global warming and the death penalty.

Two candidates for president in a GoP primary. One as governor has a record of tax reform and spending restraint, and his state finished top of the country in economic growth, but he is for civil unions for same sex couples as a basic human rights issue...so he is written off as moderate.  The second as a member of congress was one of its most profligate spenders, sponsoring over 50 spending bills but never a single deficit reduction measure.  He voted for No Child Left Behind. But...every time a microphone is in front of him he denounces gay marriage and abortion, so he gets endorsed by the Tea Party as the race's one true conservative.

 

Brutal...and 100% accurate.

[The Evil Genius]

I'm 42. I've lived in Virginia, West Virginia, and California. I've never met a conservative like the one that the OP talks about. Where do these red headed step children of the GOP live?

[AsburySkinsFan]

That was a pretty funny read, and like @StillUnknown too got to "absolutely color blind society" before laughing.

14 hours ago, B&G said:

As a general rule, conservatives favor limited, that is to say smaller, government, low taxation, free trade, a strong national defense, an absolutely color blind society, literal translation of the Constitution, and traditional American values.

 

 

IF this were the "rule" as you say, then there are VERY few Conservatives in this country. This may be the slogan on your t-shirts, but it is a far cry from how Conservatism is lived out today.

 

"Smaller government": totally explains the scrap Dept of Ed, EPA, and half a dozen other Federal agencies that help govern this country so that the oligarchs and flat earth socities can't dictate to the rest of us.

 

"Free trade": As if! If this were true then corporations wouldn't push for legislation that favors their companies in their markets. As it is this happens all the time to give them a decided edge.

 

"Strong National Defense": so tell me, is spending more than the next TWELVE nations combined strong enough for you? That type of military is meant to do ONE thing, project American dominance around the world. This Neo-Con ideal died in the sands of Iraq.

 

*edit*: This also explains why you don't like the UN, because the UN blunts the Neo-Con's ability to project our influence militarily around the world carte blanche. But what it REALLY means is that you don't like that the UN won't allow Israel to oppress the Palestinians. You don't like the UN involvement even though the ONLY reason Israel exists as a nation today is BECAUSE of the UN. */edit*

 

"Absolutely Color Blind Society": Well ain't that grand, and wouldn't it be nice if it were so, but it ain't. So while you're striking down laws that help the disenfranchised because you want all to be color blind, the others are taking advantage of your naivety and pushing their racist agendas, glass ceilings, and pepetuating their racial stereotypes.

 

"Literal Interpretation of the Constitution": So tell me, what 250 year old Constitutional scholar do you have tucked away back there to tell you how everyone understood it back then. Also, FTR, The Founding Fathers were AGAINST a standing army which is why they had the 2nd Amendment in the first place and why it begins with "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." They didn't have a stanfing army so they needed well regulated militias. So you get to choose, do you want your 2nd Amendment or your $600 BILLION per year standing army?

 

Oh...and that was just your opening statement, I'll save my time and look over the rest, I don't have time to spend laughing at this all day!

[PeterMP]

10 hours ago, tshile said:

What happens with the other crime statistics?

 

I don't know a study that looked at all crimes as far as I know, but for example in one case, the non-firearms homicide rate did not change.

 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11524-014-9865-8

 

so no people just didn't start using knives to commit murders at an equal rate.

[AsburySkinsFan]

BTW, with the "literal interpretation" bit, I'm a trained Biblical scholar, and in that field there are always those who believe they can know what the original text meant back then. And even as much as I want to honor that and attempt to achieve that, there no way to do it with 100% assurance. There's too much time, too much water under the bridge. While I'll grant that 250 years ago was not as long ago it is still impossible because we are not in that time and we approach it with 21st century lenses and while we can attempt to clear our lenses it's impossible to do so completely. 

Also, the Constitution is living, it can be changed and ratified, it is open to intepretation by the courts because the Founding Fathers were smart enough to recognize that they couldn't envision every possible scenario. Like the Bible, the Constitution didn't and still doesn't cover every eventuality so interpretive case law comes into play, just like the Jews wrote their own interpretive case law, the Midrash, because the Torah didn't cover each challenge that would be faced.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

3 hours ago, tshile said:

It's not like there's been much choice.

You and a few other right minded conservative leaning posters on here are proof that there is a choice.

[grego]

41 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

 

 

"Strong National Defense": so tell me, is spending more than the next TWELVE nations combined strong enough for you? That type of military is meant to do ONE thing, project American dominance around the world. This Neo-Con ideal died in the sands of Iraq.

 

 

how much should the US spend on national defense? i feel like this was less of a partisan issue in the past. i'm all for cutting government waste, but i do feel like we need a strong military. 

[TradeTheBeal!]

5 minutes ago, grego said:

 

how much should the US spend on national defense? i feel like this was less of a partisan issue in the past. i'm all for cutting government waste, but i do feel like we need a strong military. 

 

National Defense is absolutely an issue we all support.  Pushing for hundreds of millions of dollars in Abrams tanks that the Pentagon doesn't want, while simultaneously slashing social services (education/CDC/food stamps/etc.) is a good example of where modern "conservatism" has lost the plot in a big way.

 

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/18/congress-again-buys-abrams-tanks-the-army-doesnt-want.html

[Bang]

"traditional American values" when forced upon those who don't agree with your version of it, flies directly in the face of "limited government".

In fact, the entire social agenda put forth by the religious right is directly opposite of the entire spirit of limited government, which is to give the common man as much freedom as possible to live their lives the way they see fit within their guaranteed pursuit of happiness.

 

The ACTUAL modern conservative is now a centrist, since the party of the right has taken such a hard right turn.

But the modern conservative as defined by those sharing the label is an ignorant, under-educated do-as-I-say hypocrite, borderline fascist, willing to look the other way on any of their values so long as it damages their political enemies... often for no other reason than it's funny,, because as is shown again and again, this great swath of working class Americans who's frustrations led to trump's election are going to be hit extremely hard by the policies the administration is attempting to pass... and while it's nice to see it slowly dawning on some, when it comes time for elections the fear campaigns will keep them in line.
 

The modern conservative does not want limited government, they want government to force their ways on anyone not believing it.

The modern conservative does not want lower taxes, because they keep voting for ways to get their taxes raised by shills representing an extreme minority of people who are powerful and wealthy enough to tilt the table entirely in their favor... while blaming their political enemies for the trouble it causes the rank and file.

The modern conservative is lashed to a propaganda machine, and parrots what it's told, even when what it's told is proven again and again to be a bald faced lie, and goes completely against their own well being.

The modern conservative has a better view of Russia than they do of their fellow Americans.

the modern conservative is being exhorted by their propaganda media to begin a new Civil war, while their darling president spends taxpayer money lavishly on himself, and rails against the freedoms that make us what we are.

the modern conservative can go **** himself,, he keeps aligning himself with the enemies of this nation,, fascists, totalitarians, and turning his back on allies and countrymen.

 

You want actual conservatism back?

Get rid of the social agendas. Get rid of the notion that conservatism is the only way that is ever right.. when our history is loaded with examples of our ability to work together to do what is best for what USED to be the greatest country on the planet, the shining beacon. Our greatest strength was our ability to compromise among ourselves to do the best for our nation.

That's gone.

 

But by all means, pretend that all those nice things are what conservatives stand for. As i said during the campaign, while you elected a con man who's only platform was to shout louder than his opponents..   at some point you better take a look at who is standing shoulder to shoulder with you. These are who are representing you now.

 

~Bang

[The Evil Genius]

Did the US need a new 13 billion dollar carrier (USS Ford)? Debatable. 

 

IMO, there is a lot of military overspending while we are not satisfactorily taking care of the current personnel and retired veterans.

 

Back on topic, I'm curious as to what the OP defines as "unquantifiable environmental gain". Air quality (especially O2 and CO2) levels are easily measured, not to mention water quality levels can be measured as well.

[Riggo-toni]

Two Presidents: Which is the conservative and which is the liberal?

 

President A:

Increases spending at over 7.5%/year - the fastest rate since FDR.

Champions Ted Kennedy's education plan as his own.

Sends a bare bones force into a foreign invasion, not only ignoring the advice of most generals, but even forcing those who disagree into retirement or on to the sidelines while promoting those who support his myopic strategy so if things go awry (which they do), he can abrogate responsibility by claiming he is merely "listening to the generals."

Expands the entitlement system for the first time since LBJ.

Goes his entire first term without vetoing a single spending bill.

Signs a massive agricultural subsidies bill that not only undoes the reforms of the 90s GoP congress, but expands farm welfare to new depths.

Passes tariffs on steel, which end up costing 200,000 manufacturing jobs.

Increases the federal debt more in his first four years than the last president did in 8, and goes from a surplus to a trillion dollar deficit.

 

President B:

Grows government at roughly 1%/year - the lowest rate of the post-war era.

Quadruples the number of drone strikes.

Expands the size of the military, even while discretionary spending is at the lowest percentage of the federal budget in years.

Sends more agents to the border than what congress asks for, and deports illegal aliens in record numbers.

Renegotiates NAFTA provisions to further pry open Mexican markets in a multi-lateral deal that also opens up markets in Japan and the rest of Asia in an effort to expand US markets while simultaneously isolating China.

Champions the Republican healthcare plan drawn up by the conservative thinktank Heritage Foundation, which eliminates freeloaders showing up at the ER, forcing them instead to buy health insurance on the open market.

[Elessar78]

12 hours ago, B&G said:

Sacks, the current GOP and Conservatism are almost as different as Liberalism and Conservatism.   The GOP not longer stands for conservatives.  They are like all other politicians...the guiding light of their lives are the ways they believe will perpetuate their careers in office.

Sorkin put it best, "American Taliban" sounds pretty dead on. 

[AsburySkinsFan]

32 minutes ago, grego said:

 

how much should the US spend on national defense? i feel like this was less of a partisan issue in the past. i'm all for cutting government waste, but i do feel like we need a strong military. 

I'm absolutely certain that we do not need to maintain the Cold War model of two full scale wars with multiple smaller deloyments. We have the strongest military in the world that is unable to adjust to the roles that are needed. Match us against anyone on the open field and we take them. As it is, we are the Brits in 1776.

17 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Back on topic, I'm curious as to what the OP defines as "unquantifiable environmental gain". Air quality (especially O2 and CO2) levels are easily measured, not to mention water quality levels can be measured as well.

I'm almost certain that was a swipe at climate change reductions. Since cutting of greenhouse gasses cannot 100% determine what affect will be had on global climate change then they aren't willing to make those changes. So pump on baby, pump on!!

[Warhead36]

1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

That was a pretty funny read, and like @StillUnknown too got to "absolutely color blind society" before laughing.

 

IF this were the "rule" as you say, then there are VERY few Conservatives in this country. This may be the slogan on your t-shirts, but it is a far cry from how Comservatism is lived out today.

 

"Smaller government": totally explains the scrap Dept of Ed, EPA, and half a dozen other Federal agencies that help govern this country so that the oligarchs and flat earth socities can dictate to the rest of us.

 

"Free trade": As if! If this were true then corporations wouldn't push for legislation that favors their companies in their markets. As it is this happens all the time to give them a decided edge.

 

"Strong National Defense": so tell me, is spending more than the next TWELVE nations combined strong enough for you? That type of military is meant to do ONE thing, project American dominance around the world. This Neo-Con ideal died in the sands of Iraq.

 

"Absolutely Color Blind Society": Well ain't that grand, and wouldn't it be nice if it were so, but it ain't. So while you're striking down laws that help the disenfranchised because you want all to be color blind, the others are taking advantage of your naivety and pushing their racist agendas, glass ceilings, and pepetuating their racial stereotypes.

 

"Literal Interpretation of the Constitution": So tell me, what 250 year old Constitutional scholar do you have tucked away back there to tell you how everyone understood it back then. Also, FTR, The Founding Fathers were AGAINST a standing army which is why they had the 2nd Amendment in the first place and why it begins with "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." They didn't have a stanfing army so they needed well regulated militias. So you get to choose, do you want your 2nd Amendment or your $600 BILLION per year standing army?

 

Oh...and that was just your opening statement, I'll save my time and look over the rest, I don't have time to spend laughing at this all day!

You sir, just won the interwebz.

[Kilmer17]

Well this thread went just about as expected.

[tshile]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

I don't know a study that looked at all crimes as far as I know, but for example in one case, the non-firearms homicide rate did not change.

 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11524-014-9865-8

 

so no people just didn't start using knives to commit murders at an equal rate.

 

Well, guns are used for more than just murders (robbery, for example)

 

I'm just curious.

 

Saying a gun law that restricted the ability to buy/own a gun resulted in less gun violence doesn't really say anything. That should be expected, else you've created a completely useless law.

 

By how much, what it did for overall crime, what it did for victimization rates (guns are used to defend too...), are all sort of important.

 

For example: having no impact on crime, but showing that people were hurt more as victims, would be bad... unless you're strictly interested in reducing "gun violence" and nothing else (which is fine, so long as you recognize what your stance is here..) and "gun violence" went down.

 

On the flip side, if all crime decreased because guns are less available, then that would be a good thing.

 

(in both cases, keeping in mind the obvious issues with connecting these things directly)

 

I would think any study that wanted to be used to reference the impact of gun laws on society would have factored these things in.

 

Simply looking at "does a gun law reduce gun violence" seems silly. Unless you're only concerned with gun violence, which seems silly to me... seems like you're just trying to make people feel good about themselves.

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

5 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Well this thread went just about as expected.

You expect us to not laugh at a joke when one is told? 

You and I both know what Conservatism is on paper, but we are both adult enough to know that's not what's being practiced today.

[Elessar78]

 

 

Quote

Conservatives don't believe in tax cuts for the wealthy.  

"Believe" and "willing to do" are totally different things. 

 

Quote

Conservatives are not hostile to the rich and certainly don't begrudge successful people the money they have honestly made. 

There are many many rich Progressives. Probably more in total, because of the distribution of wealth in this country. Curious that you use the words "honestly made"—as long as it's by the letter and not necessarily by the spirit of the law it's okay. Most of the time, it's the moral relativism of Conservatives that bother me. A lot of bankers followed the letter of the law that led to the 2008 financial collapse. But it's okay, they made a bunch of money and their fellow rich people bailed them out (since that's where most tax dollars come from). But it's just the middle class that conservatives dupe regularly, those that can't absorb the shocks, who have to live with the burden. But that's their fault for being financially illiterate. 

 

Quote

Nor do conservatives believe the wealthy should somehow be punished for their success.  Quite the opposite, in fact, as we believe that success should be celebrated and emulated

Yes, only conservatives espouse these ideals to their children. 

 

 

Quote

Most Conservatives are opposed to Affirmative Action because they believe it is wrong to discriminate against, or give benefits to, anyone based on the color of his/her skin.

Yet, research shows that if you have a "black" sounding name on your resume you're less likely to get a call back. Believe it or not, people need a push to go outside their comfort zone. Most discrimination isn't active ("I'm not letting black people rent in this building") it tends to happen subconsciously. 

 

 

Quote

Conservatives want clean air, water, and a clean planet just as much as liberals do.  Conservatives are unwilling, however, to set back America's standard of living by 100 years to gain some unquantifiable environmental gain.  In this area, Conservatives are moderate rather than radical as some of our liberal friends seem to be.

But EVERYTHING conservatives want to do is to make things stay like they were 50, 100, 200 years ago! 

 

Quote

Many conservatives view European nations as hopelessly left of what is prudent in modern political thought and find them extremely naïve and utopian in view.

You can view things a certain way. Doesn't make it accurate. 

 

Many Americans of all political leanings believe we have some magical quality of life. But the data shows in terms of happiness, health, health care, debt, education—many other countries are superior to the USA. America is a great place, don't get me wrong. And in many ways we showed the world how to modernize after WW2. But in many very real ways, other countries have surpassed us in ideals that America once held as it's own. 

 

But even if we narrow it economically, cia.gov reports that we are -2.9% deficit (expenditures vs income), "lefty" nations like Germany or Sweden are at -0.9% and -0.7 respectively. So the naive and utopian europeans handle money better. Maybe because they figured out that you have to balance both sides of the equation: revenue AND expenditure.

 

Quote

 

It is true that most conservatives don't like illegal immigrants but only because of that word "illegal".  We believe illegal immigrants hold our laws in contempt, don't pay their fair share of taxes if any at all, all while taking advantage of our schools, hospitals, and our social service programs.  Anti illegal immigrant is, in a larger sense, simply Pro Law and Order.

Gosh, if all the chest thumping conservative business owners would just stop picking up and employing these "illegal" workers they'd stop coming here. It's not only liberals hiring and paying these people to work.