I am a conservative because...

I am a conservative because...

Posted in the Chico Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
TSQ

Aiea, HI

#1 Sep 21, 2013
...I'm not but I want to know why you are. How is modern American conservatism defined by you today, in the year 2013? Thank you.
Local

Hidden Valley Lake, CA

#2 Sep 21, 2013
Prefer smaller government, less regulation, most services to be provided by the private sector in a free market, and a literal interpretation of theConstitution.

Government should tax less and spend less. Cutting spending to balance the budget should be the priority. Higher income earners should have an incentive to invest (credits). Charity is the responsibility of the people.

Opposed to gay marriage(civil unions ok), abortion(later term is murder). Support the right to bear arms, death penalty, and common sense principles like personal responsibility as an individual.

Individuals should exercise personal responsibility and it is the governments role to hold them accountable even with severe penalties. Laws are enacted to reflect the best interest of the society as a whole.

Now, why are you a liberal?
TSQ

Aiea, HI

#3 Sep 21, 2013
Local wrote:
Prefer smaller government, less regulation, most services to be provided by the private sector in a free market, and a literal interpretation of theConstitution.
Government should tax less and spend less....

[Editing done so I could make the character limit- TSQ]

....Now, why are you a liberal?
Thank you for your response! I really appreciate it!

I am a liberal but I have to modify that slightly. I consider myself to be liberal but not super liberal or radical on economic issues. I am quite liberal on social issues.

On economic issues, I believe that government has a responsibility to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves (as I am sure you do) but also to help those who are disadvantaged in society. I believe that people who work 40 hours a week should have a decent wage, even if that means having or increasing the minimum wage (but I wouldn't boost it too much too quickly because I know this would cost jobs).

I am sympathetic to the 50 million Americans who need the government's help just to put food in their stomachs and I wouldn't cut a cent of that (Food Stamps sees only 1% fraud in the program- I don't condone fraud and think those engaging in it should be ferreted out and prosecuted if possible- I don't think it should be cut back because 1 in 100 people cheats the system). I consider cutting programs like this immoral and not befitting a great nation like ours. I especially don't think that children should have to pay the price because politicians cannot figure out other programs to cut (and I think some cutting should be done, but not where the cutting hits the bone).

I believe that government can productively work with the private sector and colleges and universities to help retrain workers for jobs they would not be qualified to take before such training occurs and that this helps the entire economy, not just those individuals. I don't think government should do it by itself, but it can help.

I am sympathetic to minorities in this country because they still face discrimination and more difficult circumstances than do members of the majority. Life expectancy, health, occupation, education, housing, unemployment, and other statistics bear that out without question. BUT, I don't think the answer is necessarily in programs that favor minorities over members of the majority population. I think that government should target the poorest Americans to help out and that this would cut down on feelings among white Americans that minorities are getting breaks they are not and would also help out minorities because more of them live in poverty than members of the majority. I like Jack Kemp's old ideas about enterprise zones where businesses would be encouraged through tax breaks to invest in poor urban areas in order to create jobs.

On social issues, I am quite liberal, nearly libertarian. I think abortion is bad (and terrible the later in the term it is performed) but I am pro-choice because I think it should be a woman's right to control her own body (up to the time of the viability of the child notwithstanding the mother's right to life and health). I am pro-decriminalization of drugs as I think the drug war does more harm than good. I am pro-gay rights because I think all Americans should have equal rights and not suffer discrimination because of group characteristics such as skin color or sexual orientation.

I am not morally opposed to the death penalty, but think it is applied unfairly (rich v. poor; color of victim matters in death penalty decisions, etc.) and has almost certainly led to innocent people being executed. While I am not opposed to it in theory, I oppose it in practice because of these and other problems with it. But I consider myself tough on violent crime in general and support long sentences for people who use violence against others.

I could continue, but am out of characters! Thanks again for your response! Be well.
Progun

Oroville, CA

#4 Sep 22, 2013
TSQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for your response! I really appreciate it!
I am a liberal but I have to modify that slightly. I consider myself to be liberal but not super liberal or radical on economic issues. I am quite liberal on social issues.
On economic issues, I believe that government has a responsibility to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves (as I am sure you do) but also to help those who are disadvantaged in society. I believe that people who work 40 hours a week should have a decent wage, even if that means having or increasing the minimum wage (but I wouldn't boost it too much too quickly because I know this would cost jobs).
I am sympathetic to the 50 million Americans who need the government's help just to put food in their stomachs and I wouldn't cut a cent of that (Food Stamps sees only 1% fraud in the program- I don't condone fraud and think those engaging in it should be ferreted out and prosecuted if possible- I don't think it should be cut back because 1 in 100 people cheats the system). I consider cutting programs like this immoral and not befitting a great nation like ours. I especially don't think that children should have to pay the price because politicians cannot figure out other programs to cut (and I think some cutting should be done, but not where the cutting hits the bone).
I believe that government can productively work with the private sector and colleges and universities to help retrain workers for jobs they would not be qualified to take before such training occurs and that this helps the entire economy, not just those individuals. I don't think government should do it by itself, but it can help.
I am sympathetic to minorities in this country because they still face discrimination and more difficult circumstances than do members of the majority. Life expectancy, health, occupation, education, housing, unemployment, and other statistics bear that out without question. BUT, I don't think the answer is necessarily in programs that favor minorities over members of the majority population. I think that government should target the poorest Americans to help out and that this would cut down on feelings among white Americans that minorities are getting breaks they are not and would also help out minorities because more of them live in poverty than members of the majority. I like Jack Kemp's old ideas about enterprise zones where businesses would be encouraged through tax breaks to invest in poor urban areas in order to create jobs.
On social issues, I am quite liberal, nearly libertarian. I think abortion is bad (and terrible the later in the term it is performed) but I am pro-choice because I think it should be a woman's right to control her own body (up to the time of the viability of the child notwithstanding the mother's right to life and health). I am pro-decriminalization of drugs as I think the drug war does more harm than good. I am pro-gay rights because I think all Americans should have equal rights and not suffer discrimination because of group characteristics such as skin color or sexual orientation.
Thanks again for your response! Be well.
I actually agree with SOME of what you said. On the minority issue, I disagree. Someone being disadvantaged because they are a "minority" is nothing more than an excuse, period. Anyone that wants to better themselves, can. You just have to want it bad enough. I was raised in trailer parks and the such and I CHOSE to break the cycle of excuses (I am a "minority" myself) most of my family used. Now I make an above average amount of money and own a nice home in a nicer neighborhood.

The "gay rights" thing is getting old, very quickly. If they want to be equal then they shouldn't have parades while running around in dog collars and panties in front of children. Want to be equal? Act like it.

I believe that conservatives utilize common sense, in the real world that we live in. That's my two cents anyway.
TSQ

Aiea, HI

#5 Sep 24, 2013
Progun wrote:
<quoted text>I actually agree with SOME of what you said. On the minority issue, I disagree. Someone being disadvantaged because they are a "minority" is nothing more than an excuse, period. Anyone that wants to better themselves, can. You just have to want it bad enough. I was raised in trailer parks and the such and I CHOSE to break the cycle of excuses (I am a "minority" myself) most of my family used. Now I make an above average amount of money and own a nice home in a nicer neighborhood.
The "gay rights" thing is getting old, very quickly. If they want to be equal then they shouldn't have parades while running around in dog collars and panties in front of children. Want to be equal? Act like it.
I believe that conservatives utilize common sense, in the real world that we live in. That's my two cents anyway.
Hey, I appreciate very much what you have to say. I don't want to sound insulting, but this is the first time I have ever seen you express your own views in more than "bumper sticker" fashion. Sometimes it seems like you come on here to just blow off steam and some of your comments are really extreme, such as your frequent calls to use violence to settle conflicts. But maybe that is just you expressing your darkest thoughts aloud rather than indicating what you would really do if you got the chance. What I am trying to say is that I really appreciate your explaining your views in more depth than normal here. Thank you!

I REALLY, REALLY appreciate your sharing some of your own background with us. I am curious about what drives people in general and Chico Topix posters in particular, so I think it was really helpful for you to explain where some of your beliefs come from.

Having said that, let me respond to a few of your points.

First, while you had disadvantages in life that you were able to successfully overcome, that does not mean that everyone else who is disadvantaged had the same situation or opportunities as you. I know you understand your own background extremely well, but you might think about the struggles that other people have had in their lives- some even more disadvantaged than you and with fewer opportunities than you had. Were there any circumstances in your life that helped you out of the situation you were in, or do you really think you did it all yourself? Were there things that you had, that others did not and do not have?

I agree that anyone who wants to better their own situation can make some headway in that direction, but a lot of things in life can keep people from getting as far as they otherwise might- hunger and poverty as children, living in areas with perpetual unemployment well above 20%, second- or third-class schools with under-qualified teachers, and an adversarial relationship with law enforcement (What would you think of "Stop and Frisk" if it happened to you every day of your life- you might develop a different attitude towards the police than you currently have.) To understand the circumstances others face, you have to first try for a moment to put yourself in their shoes- if only briefly.

Second- and much shorter- you see the images of a tiny, tiny minority of gay people whose behavior you don't like and you say that no one in that group should have rights until the tiny, tiny minority stops offending you with the way they dress and act in public. Now, does that really make sense to you? Why don't you think of the 99.999% of gay people who do not behave in ways that offend you, who just want to have exactly the same- not more- rights that you have as an American citizen? There are plenty of straight people who behave in over the top ways that some might find offensive, too, I give you Miley Cyrus as exhibit A. Her actions are not those of most straight people. If you think of it that way, maybe your position on the issue overall might soften.

Thanks again for your comments, Progun. I REALLY, REALLY appreciate them! Be well.
Progun

Oroville, CA

#6 Sep 26, 2013
You're welcome. I still however, disagree with you. Buried in your response I still here the same excuses, and hey still hold ZERO weight. Anyone can make excuses for anything, no offense, but that seems to be the liberal ideology as a whole. Tons of excuses, zero accountability... That is counter-productive.

I went to bed hungry most nights. Im ok. I witnessed many nights of things my child will never see, but I am ok.(In my judgement lol)

In some neighborhoods, "stop and frisk" is brought on by the residents that live there. Don't like it? Clean it up. Again, you offer excuses for someone that went through this "horrible experience." Enough excuses, lets get some results!

You and I might have something in common, we both think society is heading the wrong direction. I am doing things at home the best I can to curb it. One thing I did was start with the TV. MTV, Bravo, BET, VH1 and many others are forbidden under my roof. They are nothing but social parasites and should be shut down yesterday. I could go on and on but im over it, for now. LOL...
The right is wrong

Lincoln, CA

#7 Sep 26, 2013
Zero accountability. Let's see now, the healthcare industry in this country has bee raping the public for yearS. Clinton tried to make changes butt repubicans stopped him. When you had the chance under bush you didn't do squat.

Obama/Democrats are trying to do something and all you can do is say no!

For gawds sake man, just look at the threads on this forum asking you righties what you would replace the Affordable Care Act with and all we see is NO, GET RID OF OBAMA CARE.
Progun

Oroville, CA

#8 Sep 26, 2013
The right is wrong wrote:
Zero accountability. Let's see now, the healthcare industry in this country has bee raping the public for yearS. Clinton tried to make changes butt repubicans stopped him. When you had the chance under bush you didn't do squat.
Obama/Democrats are trying to do something and all you can do is say no!
For gawds sake man, just look at the threads on this forum asking you righties what you would replace the Affordable Care Act with and all we see is NO, GET RID OF OBAMA CARE.
Exactly.
They need to own it

Hidden Valley Lake, CA

#9 Sep 26, 2013
The right is wrong wrote:
Zero accountability
GET RID OF OBAMA CARE.
Now your talking!
The democrats can spend...spend....spend. But they can't ever pay for it.
Tea Party Revisionists

Forks, WA

#10 Sep 27, 2013
They need to own it wrote:
<quoted text>
Now your talking!
The democrats can spend...spend....spend. But they can't ever pay for it.
That is FUNNY in that you Tea Bagger Republicans Borrowed and Borrowed and Borrowed us into OBLIVION without a CLUE as to how to pay for it. The Democrats under Clinton BALANCED the BUDGET and had a SURPLUS emerging until YOU REPUBLICAN TEA BAGGERS destroyed our Economy with ENDLESS BORROWING AND SPENDING under W Bush.

You need new rhetoric boys! Your Revisionist History may float in Texass but not here!!!
Are you kidding me

Orland, CA

#11 Sep 27, 2013
The National Debt Was Growing, Even Before George W. Bush.

A common tactic of Obama and his defenders is to suggest that the debt and deficit were non-issues until the presidency of George W. Bush.
According to U.S. Treasury figures at Debt to the Penny, on January 20, 1993, as Bill Clinton took office, the total outstanding public debt was $4.1 trillion. On January 19, 2001, that same figure had increased to $5.7 trillion.

As I’ve noted before, the debt during Bush’s eight years in office increased from $5.7 trillion to $10.6 trillion, or $4.9 trillion over eight years. That’s bad; that’s basically $610 billion per year. But in the less than three years Obama has been in office, the debt has increased from $10.6 trillion to $14.2 trillion, a $3.6 trillion increase in about 27 months. In other words, Obama is increasing the debt by $1.6 trillion per year, three times as fast as Bush.
++++++++++

TPR? You lie, just like a liberal do
Are you kidding me

Orland, CA

#12 Sep 27, 2013
However, in the New York Post, Charlie Gasparino uses the occasion to remind everyone that the seeds of our current economic malaise were planted during the Clinton years.

Basically, it was under Clinton that Fannie and Freddie really began blowing the housing bubble, issuing epic amounts of mortgage-backed debt.

The story that Gasparino tells is basically: Liberal Bill Clinton thought he could use government to make everyone a homeowner and so naturally this ended in disaster.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-bill-clint...
The right is wrong

Lincoln, CA

#13 Sep 27, 2013
Are you kidding me wrote:
However, in the New York Post, Charlie Gasparino uses the occasion to remind everyone that the seeds of our current economic malaise were planted during the Clinton years.
Basically, it was under Clinton that Fannie and Freddie really began blowing the housing bubble, issuing epic amounts of mortgage-backed debt.
The story that Gasparino tells is basically: Liberal Bill Clinton thought he could use government to make everyone a homeowner and so naturally this ended in disaster.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-bill-clint...
Why won't you tell the whole story?
Progun

Oroville, CA

#14 Sep 27, 2013
Tea Party Revisionists wrote:
<quoted text>That is FUNNY in that you Tea Bagger Republicans Borrowed and Borrowed and Borrowed us into OBLIVION without a CLUE as to how to pay for it. The Democrats under Clinton BALANCED the BUDGET and had a SURPLUS emerging until YOU REPUBLICAN TEA BAGGERS destroyed our Economy with ENDLESS BORROWING AND SPENDING under W Bush.
You need new rhetoric boys! Your Revisionist History may float in Texass but not here!!!
By HERE do you mean California? Yeah, what an EXCELLENT example, thank you. The liberal idiots in Sacramento have REALLY showed how to drive an economy into the shitter now havnt they? LOL nice job proving you are nothing but a Prius driving FUCKTARD.
Are you kidding me

Orland, CA

#15 Sep 27, 2013
The right is wrong wrote:
<quoted text>
Why won't you tell the whole story?
Are you looking for names like, demorats, Franklin Raines, & Barney Frank???
Tea Party Solution

Chico, CA

#17 Sep 27, 2013
They need to own it wrote:
<quoted text>
Now your talking!
The democrats can spend...spend....spend. But they can't ever pay for it.
The facts, as I showed above, is that the repubs spend, spend, and spend-- and then blame the debt on the democrats when they get into power.
Tea Party Solution

Chico, CA

#18 Sep 27, 2013
Are you kidding me wrote:
However, in the New York Post, Charlie Gasparino uses the occasion to remind everyone that the seeds of our current economic malaise were planted during the Clinton years.
Basically, it was under Clinton that Fannie and Freddie really began blowing the housing bubble, issuing epic amounts of mortgage-backed debt.
The story that Gasparino tells is basically: Liberal Bill Clinton thought he could use government to make everyone a homeowner and so naturally this ended in disaster.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-bill-clint...
You and Sam keep repeating these lies. It was called the sub-prime crisis because it had to do with the ridiculously dangerous loans made by PRIVATE companies that were under NO mandate to make these loans. Fannie and Freddie and the CRA had NOTHING to do with the sub-prime crisis.

The de-regulations such as the elimination of Glass-Steagall, and the de-regulating of derivitives, allowed the private lenders and private Wall Streeters to cause the meltdown. That, plus the fact that Bush's head of the SEC--which is supposed to stringently oversee Wall Street-- was told to look the other way.
The right is wrong

Lincoln, CA

#19 Sep 27, 2013
Tea Party Revisionists wrote:
<quoted text>
You need new rhetoric boys! Your Revisionist History may float in Texass but not here!!!
So true, so true! And let’s not forget the repubican mantra “deregulate, deregulate, deregulate”. They pushed legislation to deregulate the banking, mortgage and securities industries (Glass-Steagall Act) and Bill Clinton was forced to sign off on it because the righties were holding him hostage over zipper -gate. Then along comes a court ruling telling the banks/mortgage companies to quit discriminating and the banks/mortgage companies took it as a requirement to loan to anyone/everyone.

When all the problems came to light under george w. he ordered the watchdog agencies that he had complete control over to ignore problem.

And popgun has the audacity to blame the economic woes here in Caulifornia on liberals.
Progun

Oroville, CA

#20 Oct 3, 2013
The right is wrong wrote:
<quoted text>
So true, so true! And let’s not forget the repubican mantra “deregulate, deregulate, deregulate”. They pushed legislation to deregulate the banking, mortgage and securities industries (Glass-Steagall Act) and Bill Clinton was forced to sign off on it because the righties were holding him hostage over zipper -gate. Then along comes a court ruling telling the banks/mortgage companies to quit discriminating and the banks/mortgage companies took it as a requirement to loan to anyone/everyone.
When all the problems came to light under george w. he ordered the watchdog agencies that he had complete control over to ignore problem.
And popgun has the audacity to blame the economic woes here in Caulifornia on liberals.
Yeah I know, it sucks to hear the truth. Want more of the truth? Google "Bill Whittle why we suck", that one will really get you off ;)
The right is wrong

Lincoln, CA

#21 Oct 3, 2013
Progun wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah I know, it sucks to hear the truth. Want more of the truth? Google "Bill Whittle why we suck", that one will really get you off ;)
Any chance it'll tell us all how the Koch bros "earned/worked" their fortune.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chico Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Obama administration is guilty of acting like 1... 4 hr Both Sides Now 9
We KNEW THEY WERE RACISTS 4 hr MonkeyDonald 3
Only Rightious EvangeliKLANS will be RAPTURED S... 5 hr GodHatesLiars 2
No RAPTURE: Proves EvangeliKLANS ARE EVIL! 5 hr LiarLiarSADSADSAD 5
Trump CAN'T STOP LYING 20 hr a-citizen 8
RepubliKLAN & EvangeliKLAN Conduct should be IL... Sat Proof 4 Godfrey 4
GRANDPA Off The Clock Sat Censorship Is Evil 5

Chico Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chico Mortgages