Alright, I Don't Understand, What Is It That Conservatives Want?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Coloradomtnman, Mar 9, 2009.

  1. Coloradomtnman
    Offline

    Coloradomtnman Rational and proud of it.

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    4,311
    Thanks Received:
    863
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    Denver
    Ratings:
    +1,495
    I realized the other day that I have been debating with conservatives on the USMB and else where, and yet, I only think I know what conservatives want, but I have never had it actually laid out for me. I'll list what I think Conservatism stands for and why, and you conservatives correct me and add anything I might've left out. Please be prepared to answer questions and defend your points.

    And I would welcome if a conservative did this for liberals. It could be a great way to have an open dialogue and gain a greater understanding of the other side's perspective and motives.

    Please refrain from angry posts, name-calling, and other unhelpful communication techniques (or lack thereof).
    *****************************************************************

    Fiscal Conservatism:

    1. Lower taxes, because you should keep what you earn and there are many lazy people who simply want or live off of government hand-outs; and, to keep the economy strong.

    2. Less government intrusion in our personal lives, because you know how to live your life and the government should have nothing to do with it.

    3. Less governmental regulations on business practices, because that's the foundation of free market capitalism.

    4. Abolishment of Welfare and Medicaid, see #1.

    5. Privatized Social Security or its abolishment, because you know better how to spend and save your money.

    6. Broadened opportunity to attain wealth, see #3.

    7. The Federal government should have nothing to do with education, it requires more taxes, see #1.

    Social Conservatism

    1. Abortion criminalized, because its murder (per the Bible).

    2. A government based on Christian Values, because the founding fathers were Christians and that's the morality on which they founded the nation.

    3. Homosexuality banned, because the Bible says so.

    4. Affirmative action discontinued, because black people are playing the race card and not really suffering as badly as they project. And, ultimately, affirmative action hurts all of the races.

    5. Stricter legal sentences for criminals and drug users, to deter and lower the crime rate.

    Other:

    1. Strong Defense, because otherwise we would be invaded or destroyed, or our allies would.

    2. To Maintain the US's role as the world economic and military superpower, see Fiscal Conservatism #6 and Other #1.

    3. Right to bear arms, to defend yourself against criminals and to have the opportunity to revolt against the government if you thought it was necessary.

    4. Conservatives would mostly agree that: The way things are in American government are mostly good, except for over-spending, activist judges, over taxation of the wealthy and of business, and lenient jail terms.

    5. Conservatives would mostly agree that: The way things are in American society are mostly wrong, because of teaching wrong things about Christianity in public schools, liberal media bias, liberal immorality, and widespread crime and drug use.

    I know there's more but I can't think of'em. Alright, have at!
     
  2. Red Dawn
    Offline

    Red Dawn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Messages:
    3,224
    Thanks Received:
    456
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Liberal Socialist Paradise
    Ratings:
    +456
    Let me be brief and simple about this.

    A federal government that does virtually nothing except maintain a massive standing military.



    I used to think they believed the federal government should also enforce criminal laws and civil rights. But, I've seen too much cheerleading for torture, and for diminishing the fourth amendment and habeus corpus to buy that BS anymore.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Sinatra
    Offline

    Sinatra Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Messages:
    8,013
    Thanks Received:
    1,005
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,005
    Swayze would kick your ass. Even drag-Swayze would kick your ass...

    [​IMG]
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Coloradomtnman
    Offline

    Coloradomtnman Rational and proud of it.

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    4,311
    Thanks Received:
    863
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    Denver
    Ratings:
    +1,495
    What about state and local governments? Do you think they should take over all of the other duties normally held by the Fed? Such as Border Patrol, IRS, national regulations, etc.?

    And you think the Fed shouldn't enforce the Constitution?
     
  5. WillowTree
    Offline

    WillowTree Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    68,146
    Thanks Received:
    10,164
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +14,700



    I wondered who would be the thread killer. Didn't take you long to close the dialogue.. Thank goodness it wasn't a conservative. :lol:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    I think that's a fairly decent desciption of what people who identify themselves as conservatives want.

    Of course, as written, much of what those people want most liberals want, too.

    The devil is in the details of how we arrive at those happy states.

    As to "social conservatives"?

    What a terribly misnamed group that is.

    They are not remotely conservative. They are reactional zealots seeking to impose their (usally faith based) value systems (which have little to do with anything governments should be involved in, frankly) on all of us.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. johnrocks
    Offline

    johnrocks Silver Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,919
    Thanks Received:
    279
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    West Monroe, La.
    Ratings:
    +279
    It's pretty simple for me. Less government intervention, both foreign and domestic. This means a lot more freedom as well as a lot more personal responsibility and with that comes some messiness, some will fall through and get hurt,some will lose their homes,some will not get full healthcare but we will be more free, less taxed and we can then get down to actually helping our fellow man that truly deserves to be helped and to hell with those who want to play the system on both sides.
     
  8. jsnforce
    Offline

    jsnforce Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    I agree. However for the most part, religious values are benevolent in nature. It's the zealots that ruin it for all. Some people argue that all conservative thought is rooted in religion, such as the stance on abortion and capital punishment, but I think that's no reason to ignore it.
     
  9. Coloradomtnman
    Offline

    Coloradomtnman Rational and proud of it.

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    4,311
    Thanks Received:
    863
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    Denver
    Ratings:
    +1,495
    I'm sorry, John, but being a liberal it isn't clear to me what you mean exactly by government intervention. Could you elaborate that for me?

    And I from my perspective, it doesn't seem like we can trust private business or that it is likely that invidivuals, without federal regulations, to support medicaid or welfare. And, having come to politics in the Bush Jr. era, I don't see how we lower taxes and maintain the level of federal programs that help with poverty. How do you think we can lower taxes and yet help the elderly who survive solely on social security to get the medical treatment and medicines they need, and keep poverty at a low level and thereby crime at a low level and society as a whole at a higher level (because of better rates of high school and college graduations and lower rates of alcoholism, etc.)?

    What do you think about all US citizens having access to affordable health care? What about children having health care?

    And how do you mean that we will be more free? Do you mean as in business regulations, social liberties (such as abortion rights or gay rights) or both or am I totally off-track?
     
  10. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Yes, we should keep as much as possible of what we earn, but not the dependent clause. I don't think everyone the government helps is 'lazy' or the rest. However, I do think the government intentionally or not, adds caveats that trap people. I much prefer private organizations that are located near the person, get to know the person, and have a sense of the community they are living. If not private, local-village, city, or county, for the same reasons as preferring private. Are people willing to support? Never has been a problem. Now with what's happening, yes, I do expect charitable donations to drop like a rock. The table has been set.
    Indeed. I really do not care what adults do within the confines of private walls. Children? If there appears to be abuse or neglect, the state has an interest. Not the federal government.
    Depends upon the business, but as a general rule, yes.
    see response
    Not without notice, nor without 'choice' for anyone that's contributed. That is called 'theft'. (See McNuggets problems)
    no, just get out of the way.
    Indeed. State and local concern.

    Social Conservatism

    1. Abortion criminalized, because its murder (per the Bible). [/quote] Let the courts and conscience sort it out.
    The government should not endorse any religion.
    Nope, just no extra rights.
    Nope to the first sentence and intents; yes to the second.
    Prohibition worked wonderfully, as do the drug laws. :rolleyes:
    Yes, not because of 'otherwise' to ensure the issue doesn't appear.
    I think we are losing the first, the second will fall along.
    Indeed.
    Disagree, I find most things the feds do ill reasoned and worse implemented.
    That's just warped.
    Those are my responses. Considering the questions and phraseology, I wouldn't be able to hope to come up with a list like the above.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page