Comments
1 - 20 of 227 Comments Last updated Feb 27, 2013
First Prev
of 12
Next Last

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#1 Feb 2, 2013
I'm wondering if there are any "Conservatives" out there who can explain their philosophy about "Conservativism" without just citing what they are for or against.

What is the underlying philosophy of Conservativism? How do Conservative positions stem from that philosophy?
frank

Smithfield, NC

#2 Feb 2, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
What is the underlying philosophy of Conservativism?
common sense.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#3 Feb 2, 2013
frank wrote:
<quoted text>
common sense.
Can you explain that better?

How do you determine which position is the "common sense" position?

For example:
Is it "common sense" that motorcycle riders should be required to wear a helmet?

Or is it "common sense" that a motorcycle rider is allowed to risk his life if he wants and therefore should not be required to wear a helmet?

“ ILKS r kewl ”

Since: Apr 09

Conch republic

#4 Feb 2, 2013
frank wrote:
<quoted text>
common sense.
LMAO... oh gawd you're a riot!(and not too smart either)

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#5 Feb 2, 2013
frank wrote:
<quoted text>
common sense.
You are mistaking common sense for corn pone opinions.

"You tell me whar a man gits his corn pone, en I'll tell you what his 'pinions is."
-- Mark Twain
-- http://www.paulgraham.com/cornpone.html
frank

Fayetteville, NC

#6 Feb 3, 2013
Well, naturally, I don't expect the libtards in here to agree with me. There's one euro-khazar "jew" that I agree with...a guy whom has been banned from the UK, lol.

Here's one of his best known sayings:

"Liberalism is a mental disorder"

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#7 Feb 3, 2013
frank wrote:
Well, naturally, I don't expect the libtards in here to agree with me. There's one euro-khazar "jew" that I agree with...a guy whom has been banned from the UK, lol.
Here's one of his best known sayings:
"Liberalism is a mental disorder"
That's still not an answer to the question.

Can you better define "common sense"?

Is it common sense that a motorcyclist should be required to wear a helmet?
-Or-
Is it common sense that a motorcyclist should be free to do with his skull whatever he chooses regardless of how that threatens the livelihood and safety of other people?

What is the "Conservative" position on this sort of thing and why?
frank

Fayetteville, NC

#8 Feb 3, 2013
You can't get at the heart of conservatism by questioning whether one should or should not be forced to wear a helmet because you'll find a variety of opinions.

The position of many conservatives can be summed up by saying that we like capitalism and less govt and tend to support the kind of values that made this country--and makes any country---great. And many of us prefer that people work for a living, lol.

And, personally, If you're stupid enough to not wear one then go right ahead.

I say this: remove all warning-labels and let natural selection take care of the rest.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#9 Feb 3, 2013
frank wrote:
You can't get at the heart of conservatism by questioning whether one should or should not be forced to wear a helmet because you'll find a variety of opinions.
The position of many conservatives can be summed up by saying that we like capitalism and less govt and tend to support the kind of values that made this country--and makes any country---great. And many of us prefer that people work for a living, lol.
And, personally, If you're stupid enough to not wear one then go right ahead.
I say this: remove all warning-labels and let natural selection take care of the rest.
Alright, now were are getting somewhere.

So, you are for capitalism. That's what the liberals are for as well. The difference is that the liberals want some rules to govern what businesses can do to their workers (minimum wage, OSHA, etc.) and conservatives feel that strong Unions can overdo those rules and make it hard for businesses to work.

On a scale of 1 to 10 where Slave Owners is a 1 and Communist State run Farms is a 10, Conservatives are a 4 and Liberals are a 6. The differences simply aren't that big.

Smaller government - This always confuses me. It seems to me that Government should be involved in national defense, regulating commerce, enforcing laws, maintaining infrastructure, etc. That, to me, is small government.

"Big Government" to me is when the Government starts telling people what they can or can't do in their personal lives. Government dictating who can or can't get married, to me is "Big Government". Government telling a woman whether or not she should have a baby is "Big Government". Government telling people whether or not they have a right to die is "Big Government". Government trying to teach one particular religion is "Big Government".

As a Conservative who doesn't like Big Government, are you for or against the government dictating things like who is allow to get married?

You support "values". In particular the "values" that made this country great.

Care to give an example or two of what you think those values are?

Personally, I think slavery was a bad thing. However, slavery certainly did build this country, it's very pro-capitalism and very small government. And the Bible is clearly very much in favor of slavery.

So, as a Conservative, would you side with the Bible, the Founding Fathers, Small Government and Capitalism _or_ would you side with personal freedom?

You see how these questions can get tricky?

And you want people to work.

I find this interesting, because it seems to me like I hear a lot of Conservatives who are retired and living off social security, or who are unemployed and getting money from the government, but they are still complaining about "the takers".

So, who exactly are these "takers"
frank

Fayetteville, NC

#10 Feb 3, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Alright, now were are getting somewhere.
So, you are for capitalism. That's what the liberals are for as well. The difference is that the liberals want some rules to govern what businesses can do to their workers (minimum wage, OSHA, etc.) and conservatives feel that strong Unions can overdo those rules and make it hard for businesses to work.
On a scale of 1 to 10 where Slave Owners is a 1 and Communist State run Farms is a 10, Conservatives are a 4 and Liberals are a 6. The differences simply aren't that big.
Smaller government - This always confuses me. It seems to me that Government should be involved in national defense, regulating commerce, enforcing laws, maintaining infrastructure, etc. That, to me, is small government.
"Big Government" to me is when the Government starts telling people what they can or can't do in their personal lives. Government dictating who can or can't get married, to me is "Big Government". Government telling a woman whether or not she should have a baby is "Big Government". Government telling people whether or not they have a right to die is "Big Government". Government trying to teach one particular religion is "Big Government".
As a Conservative who doesn't like Big Government, are you for or against the government dictating things like who is allow to get married?
You support "values". In particular the "values" that made this country great.
Care to give an example or two of what you think those values are?
Personally, I think slavery was a bad thing. However, slavery certainly did build this country, it's very pro-capitalism and very small government. And the Bible is clearly very much in favor of slavery.
So, as a Conservative, would you side with the Bible, the Founding Fathers, Small Government and Capitalism _or_ would you side with personal freedom?
You see how these questions can get tricky?
And you want people to work.
I find this interesting, because it seems to me like I hear a lot of Conservatives who are retired and living off social security, or who are unemployed and getting money from the government, but they are still complaining about "the takers".
So, who exactly are these "takers"
Social security, disability (for those whom are actually disabled), and limited un-employment for the one whom has actually been working for a living and lost their job is reasonable, I have no problem with that.

You made several valid points, however the issue, when it comes to "takers", are those whom are career-welfare recipients. I've met these types personally--they get checks, they conitinue to have children, they have no desire to work (seriously)...and they pass this mentality onto their children. We need to look into fixing this issue. Lol, in the last five years an old housing project was razed and in its place a new one built that looks like luxury apartments with a gushing water fountain in it's court-yard--I wouldn't want to come off of welfare either, I guess, lol.

As for the unions--I can understand the logic behind their creation however it often leads to abuse of the employer as, in some cases, they expect too much pay and over-burden employers with too many demands.

Since: Sep 08

Anderson, IN

#11 Feb 3, 2013
frank wrote:
You can't get at the heart of conservatism by questioning whether one should or should not be forced to wear a helmet because you'll find a variety of opinions.
The position of many conservatives can be summed up by saying that we like capitalism and less govt and tend to support the kind of values that made this country--and makes any country---great. And many of us prefer that people work for a living, lol.
And, personally, If you're stupid enough to not wear one then go right ahead.
I say this: remove all warning-labels and let natural selection take care of the rest.
You like monopolies, not capitalism. You like oligarchies. The rich running the country. You like fascism, corporations of the rich running the government. You LOVE corporate socialism, giving rich people taxes. You like corporations, as government, telling workers they have no rights to fair wages, health care, and paid days off.

Let's say it like it is, shall we?
frank

Fayetteville, NC

#12 Feb 3, 2013
btw, you cant exactly place all conservatives and liberals on that scale of yours

Some liberals are insane (look at cookie, fo ran example)...and if your an actual liberal,then you know as well as I do that many "liberals" are in fact communists.

They want the govt to do everyhing and they oppose anything that gives society order and structure.

Since: Sep 08

Anderson, IN

#13 Feb 3, 2013
frank wrote:
btw, you cant exactly place all conservatives and liberals on that scale of yours
Some liberals are insane (look at cookie, fo ran example)...and if your an actual liberal,then you know as well as I do that many "liberals" are in fact communists.
They want the govt to do everyhing and they oppose anything that gives society order and structure.
You sure can put tea partiers on one scale....illiterate, uneducated, and begging to stay that way.

“ ILKS r kewl ”

Since: Apr 09

Conch republic

#14 Feb 3, 2013
frank wrote:

I say this: remove all warning-labels and let natural selection take care of the rest.
you'd be gone in a NY flash!
frank

Fayetteville, NC

#15 Feb 3, 2013
Cookie_Parker wrote:
<quoted text>
You sure can put tea partiers on one scale....illiterate, uneducated, and begging to stay that way.
Not really--there ya go with your stereotypes again.

In the "tea-party" you will find smart people, dumb people, racists, non-racists, etc., etc.

And I've actually met some pretty reasonable liberals, admittedly...but you're not one of them.
frank

Fayetteville, NC

#16 Feb 3, 2013
Cookie_Parker wrote:
<quoted text>
You like monopolies, not capitalism. You like oligarchies. The rich running the country. You like fascism, corporations of the rich running the government. You LOVE corporate socialism, giving rich people taxes. You like corporations, as government, telling workers they have no rights to fair wages, health care, and paid days off.
Let's say it like it is, shall we?
Ohhhh shut up you nut and get a job.

the communism forum is that way----->

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#17 Feb 3, 2013
frank wrote:
<quoted text>
Social security, disability (for those whom are actually disabled), and limited un-employment for the one whom has actually been working for a living and lost their job is reasonable, I have no problem with that.
That's the current situation.
You made several valid points, however the issue, when it comes to "takers", are those whom are career-welfare recipients. I've met these types personally--they get checks, they conitinue to have children, they have no desire to work (seriously)...and they pass this mentality onto their children.
Look, obviously in any set of people there is going to be a bell curve. There's going to be someone who is great and someone who is terrible and most people are going to be in the middle.

I'm sure that there are people out there who abuse the system. there always have been. there always will be.

However, the vast majority of people on welfare or getting food stamps are not abusing the system. They are abused by the system.

But, let's take it a step further. Let's say there is a single mother who is on welfare and does not want to work. She has six kids. There are Conservatives who would say "cut her off".

My perspective is this: There are six Americans who are children who did not ask to have this woman as a mother, who do not have the ability to get jobs to buy food or clothing for themselves.

Given that it's something like .000001% of the budget, I say feed them. Feed all them. We have more food than we can possibly use. No one should be hungry. Certainly not kids. Regardless of who they have for parents.
As for the unions--I can understand the logic behind their creation however it often leads to abuse of the employer as, in some cases, they expect too much pay and over-burden employers with too many demands.
This may be true, but more often than not the Unions are used as scape goats and the deals they've made are summarily cancelled without penalty.

Often workers in the public sector (postal, teachers, etc) have lower paying jobs but trade low pay for job security and good benefits.

Now, I recognize (especially here in CA) that benefits can get out of hand as the economy changes. However, when you tell a worker they can't have a raise and then instead give them a 401k or tenure, you can't then turn around 10 years later and say "Psych! We took your 401k and cancelled your tenure."

This is a little bit of a non-seq, but it's topical.

In December, the average wage in this country jumped 2%. That's a massive jump for one month. Especially with high unemployment and a weak economy. That's the sort of thing we saw during the .com boom.

The thing is, the wages for the normal workers didn't change at all. What really happened was that the SUPER wealthy, fearing the increase in taxes as a part of the fiscal cliff, arranged to get bonuses and early pay before the end of the year so they could avoid the higher rates that would kick in in Jan.

Think about that for a second. The top 1% arranged for themselves to get _bonuses_ that were so large that the bonuses averaged out to a 2% raise for the rest of the 99% of the public.

The national average is something like $43k/year or $3,500 a month.

$348,000 is the average amount of money the people in the top 1% took in just December as a _bonus_ tax dodge so that they could avoid higher rates.

Reverse engineering that, you could say it this way:

The top 1% took so much money as tax dodge bonuses in December that they could literally hire every single person who is unemployed and pay them the average yearly salary and they would STILL have a ton of money left over for themselves, plus their normal pay.

If these are the job makers, where are the jobs?

If Conservatives really want people to get back to work, shouldn't we be going after these tax dodgers?

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#18 Feb 3, 2013
frank wrote:
btw, you cant exactly place all conservatives and liberals on that scale of yours
Some liberals are insane (look at cookie, fo ran example)...and if your an actual liberal,then you know as well as I do that many "liberals" are in fact communists.
They want the govt to do everyhing and they oppose anything that gives society order and structure.
Frank, you know that that's not true.

Not only is it not "many" liberals that want communism, it's hardly any.

Just like it's hardly any Conservatives that want the government to strictly enforce Christianity on school children.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#19 Feb 3, 2013
frank wrote:
In the "tea-party" you will find smart people, dumb people, racists, non-racists, etc., etc.
This is likely true, however it is also true that the Tea Party was created by the Koch Bros for the express purpose of opposing raising their taxes.

And that a large part of the Tea Party is based on racism.

It's not the normal Republicans who are claiming Obama was born in Africa. It's not the normal Republicans holding signs with Obama with a bone in his nose. Or claiming that he's a "secret muslim", etc.

Collin Powell is a normal Republican. Ask him about the party's problem with racism.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#20 Feb 3, 2013
frank wrote:
<quoted text>
Ohhhh shut up you nut and get a job.
the communism forum is that way----->
Should the arrow point left instead of right?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 12
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.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
intelligent debate 21 min Big Al 77
++++ WHY ATHEISTS ARE ON a CHRISTIAN FORUM ++++ (Dec '13) 36 min NDanger 69
Evolution versus Creation, which one is right? 44 min Thinking 4
Michael Brown was a Christian??? 47 min Truth 308
Barnsweb's New Testament, I.E. Chop Chop! 1 hr Sceptical_Mal 5
Are World Events Pointing to End Times 1 hr Loveismygoal 481
New Nightmares: ISIS Crossing Border; Sleeper C... 2 hr Sceptical_Mal 13
Was Paul a False Apostle? (May '08) 4 hr dollarsbill 2,105
Scripture cancels Rapture lottery 7 hr dollarsbill 163
Cookie's Place (Oct '13) 10 hr Reup 13,756
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Christian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••