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

[Zoom-boing]

A fiscally conservative, smaller government with a ginormous amount of common sense works for me.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

As stated.. why don't you actually go by the statement sand stances... rather than your ASSumptions such as

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

Excuse me, but I REALLY DO believe that the above is how conservatives think. It isn't meant to be snarky. If you don't agree with the above, then let me know so I can revise my perception.

I don't assume all liberals are lying... some truly believe in much about their cause.... I think they are mainly misguided because they love to 'take care' of others, as long as it is at the forced expense of everyone else...

Whether or not, it seems you have ASSumed that I was lying. So were you or were you not accusing me of lying and misleading people for some sort of devious ulterior motive?

But there are some that try the manipulation, such as the example of your little OP... in some deluded attempt to appear to subjectively research and understand... all the while it is simply a vehicle to add in their little slogans and smartass remarks, to paint conservative stances in the 'evil' light that you very much want it to be to advance your admitted agenda/bias

I've gone back and read my posts on this thread Dave, just to be sure that I haven't attacked anyone's point of view. I haven't. Can you post a real attack or just what you perceive to be an attack? I mean, being that you're so objective and all...

If you are supposedly trying to 'understand' and get what the actual stances are.... leave out the obvious snarky comments that are there to incite an angry response... go with the truthful reporting and analysis... you would be taken more seriously and treated as a person with an open mind and TRULY trying to understand, rather than quickly being perceived as more like bobo

Once again, what you perceive as snarky, I perceive as genuine. The only angry responses to my OP are yours and Cecelie's (who is a radical and always thinks I'm attacking conservatism and Christianity - and, admittedly, she isn't totally wrong). However, this time, you are both wrong. Most conservatives, as was posted earlier in this thread: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...it-that-conservatives-want-6.html#post1088686 , have responded genuinely and without anger.

So either lay off the ASSumptions and accusations, or stick me on your ever-growing ignore list.

 

[Newby]

If you really believe that's how all conservatives look at things socially then you haven't made an honest attempt to understand what most conservatives believe, or you obviously don't know very many conservative people. You're obviously listening to too much media b.s. and believing it.

 

[Sinatra]

As stated.. why don't you actually go by the statement sand stances... rather than your ASSumptions such as

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

Excuse me, but I REALLY DO believe that the above is how conservatives think. It isn't meant to be snarky. If you don't agree with the above, then let me know so I can revise my perception.

I don't assume all liberals are lying... some truly believe in much about their cause.... I think they are mainly misguided because they love to 'take care' of others, as long as it is at the forced expense of everyone else...

Whether or not, it seems you have ASSumed that I was lying. So were you or were you not accusing me of lying and misleading people for some sort of devious ulterior motive?

But there are some that try the manipulation, such as the example of your little OP... in some deluded attempt to appear to subjectively research and understand... all the while it is simply a vehicle to add in their little slogans and smartass remarks, to paint conservative stances in the 'evil' light that you very much want it to be to advance your admitted agenda/bias

I've gone back and read my posts on this thread Dave, just to be sure that I haven't attacked anyone's point of view. I haven't. Can you post a real attack or just what you perceive to be an attack? I mean, being that you're so objective and all...

If you are supposedly trying to 'understand' and get what the actual stances are.... leave out the obvious snarky comments that are there to incite an angry response... go with the truthful reporting and analysis... you would be taken more seriously and treated as a person with an open mind and TRULY trying to understand, rather than quickly being perceived as more like bobo

Once again, what you perceive as snarky, I perceive as genuine. The only angry responses to my OP are yours and Cecelie's (who is a radical and always thinks I'm attacking conservatism and Christianity - and, admittedly, she isn't totally wrong). However, this time, you are both wrong. Most conservatives, as was posted earlier in this thread: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...it-that-conservatives-want-6.html#post1088686 , have responded genuinely and without anger.

So either lay off the ASSumptions and accusations, or stick me on your ever-growing ignore list.

You are attempting to tie Conservatism to Christianity in a negative way and in doing so bring offense to both. If you fail to accept that you are simply lying or unaware of your actual intent...

That is no different than tying Liberalism to Atheism in an equally negative way.

Each philosophy/belief/non-belief can comfortably coexist with one another. There are conservatives who do not attend church and speak very little of their faith or lack thereof. Yes, there is a Bible-belt conservatism that remains an integral part of the movement, but within even that example are far more open minds than is presented in the mainstream media and the liberal left - just as there are actual open minded examples to be found in the liberal left regarding their views of Christian Conservatism.

You would do well to broaden your perspective as the original intent of your post would suggest - not attempt an end run of an already preconceived and deeply held belief regarding an already formed answer to your own question.

That would be akin to someone opening a thread stating they want to understand what homosexuals really want and then ending it with saying that they probably don't really know what they want because they are stupid, over-emotional fags.

That would simply be a pre-formed reply to an originally dishonest question.

Dig it?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

What do Conservatives want? You can pretty much boil it all down:

Respect for the Constitution

Respect for Life

Less Government

Personal Responsibility

 

[Coloradomtnman]

You are attempting to tie Conservatism to Christianity in a negative way and in doing so bring offense to both. If you fail to accept that you are simply lying or unaware of your actual intent...

That is no different than tying Liberalism to Atheism in an equally negative way.

Each philosophy/belief/non-belief can comfortably coexist with one another. There are conservatives who do not attend church and speak very little of their faith or lack thereof. Yes, there is a Bible-belt conservatism that remains an integral part of the movement, but within even that example are far more open minds than is presented in the mainstream media and the liberal left - just as their are actual open minded examples to be found in the liberal left regarding their views of Christian Conservatism.

You would do well to broaden your perspective as the original intent of your post would suggest - not attempt an end run of an already preconceived and deeply held belief regarding an already formed answer to your own question.

That would be akin to someone opening a thread stating they want to understand what homosexuals really want and then ending it with saying that they probably don't really know what they want because they are stupid, over-emotional fags.

That would simply be a pre-formed reply to an originally dishonest question.

Dig it?

What attacks have I made?! Are you people delirious?

TO ME I really perceived that that REALLY was conservatism! It isn't an attack!

I don't know ANY conservatives, at least, not well. And the great thing about USMB is that I can talk about religion and politics all I want and not be considered rude, where as in my personal life with friends and family at dinner (or whatever other examples you can think of), it might not be inappropriate.

To me, and I was inaccurate it seems, Christianity and Conservatism WERE tied together. There were exceptions, yes, but generally speaking, that I how I perceived it.

And from what I perceived, Christians wouldn't perceive what I wrote as negative, but as accurate. At least, I hoped it was accurate, and if it wasn't, then a nice, polite conservative who obviously understands conservatism better than I do, would kindly correct my misunderstanding or mistake.

Instead, I am being attacked! I'm not ATTACKING YOUR BELIEFS! I'm trying to understand them. HONESTLY! I don't know if its the overarching tone of the dialogue between liberals and conservatives that leads people on USMB to assume the worst of each other, but I am not attacking conservatism. I'm NOT lying.

This whole thread is an attempt to broaden my understanding. Get over yourselves. Why do you continue to accuse me of lying and dishonesty?! Sheesh!

 

[Amanda]

Why do you continue to accuse me of lying and dishonesty?! Sheesh!

It's the culture of the board. If you want people to perceive you as genuine and not a partisan hack you're going to have to earn it. I think I've mostly achieved it, but it's difficult. You will also learn over time who you shouldn't bother to engage because no amount of rational approaching will get you an honest dialog, and some are only nutty on their special issues, so it can be quite an adventure.

 

[Sinatra]

You are attempting to tie Conservatism to Christianity in a negative way and in doing so bring offense to both. If you fail to accept that you are simply lying or unaware of your actual intent...

That is no different than tying Liberalism to Atheism in an equally negative way.

Each philosophy/belief/non-belief can comfortably coexist with one another. There are conservatives who do not attend church and speak very little of their faith or lack thereof. Yes, there is a Bible-belt conservatism that remains an integral part of the movement, but within even that example are far more open minds than is presented in the mainstream media and the liberal left - just as their are actual open minded examples to be found in the liberal left regarding their views of Christian Conservatism.

You would do well to broaden your perspective as the original intent of your post would suggest - not attempt an end run of an already preconceived and deeply held belief regarding an already formed answer to your own question.

That would be akin to someone opening a thread stating they want to understand what homosexuals really want and then ending it with saying that they probably don't really know what they want because they are stupid, over-emotional fags.

That would simply be a pre-formed reply to an originally dishonest question.

Dig it?

What attacks have I made?! Are you people delirious?

TO ME I really perceived that that REALLY was conservatism! It isn't an attack!

I don't know ANY conservatives, at least, not well. And the great thing about USMB is that I can talk about religion and politics all I want and not be considered rude, where as in my personal life with friends and family at dinner (or whatever other examples you can think of), it might not be inappropriate.

To me, and I was inaccurate it seems, Christianity and Conservatism WERE tied together. There were exceptions, yes, but generally speaking, that I how I perceived it.

And from what I perceived, Christians wouldn't perceive what I wrote as negative, but as accurate. At least, I hoped it was accurate, and if it wasn't, then a nice, polite conservative who obviously understands conservatism better than I do, would kindly correct my misunderstanding or mistake.

Instead, I am being attacked! I'm not ATTACKING YOUR BELIEFS! I'm trying to understand them. HONESTLY! I don't know if its the overarching tone of the dialogue between liberals and conservatives that leads people on USMB to assume the worst of each other, but I am not attacking conservatism. I'm NOT lying.

This whole thread is an attempt to broaden my understanding. Get over yourselves. Why do you continue to accuse me of lying and dishonesty?! Sheesh!

Now don't get all stupid and over emotional here...

 

[Cecilie1200]

Alright. After reading the comments on my OP, let me edit the list and see if I can't make it more accurate, therein reorganising my perception of conservatism:

Although the definition that libertarians and conservatives use to define conservatism may change from individual to individual, this is the most commonly held definition of the different types of conservatism.

Fiscal Conservatism:

A cornerstone of the US foundation is the individual's rights to prosperity. All government, especially the Federal, is suspect.

1. The Federal Government should be extremely limited, to only issues on the national level such as: defense, and enforcement of the Constitution. This would lower taxes because of less programs on which the government needs less money to spend; and because Federal government is inefficient. Basically, the Federal government is inept at dealing with issues below the national level and should only deal with issues in the ways laid out by the Constitution.

2. The Federal Government should have no right to intrude in our lives. See #1.

Not quite. Conservatives are not anarchists, after all, and by definition, government intrudes upon our lives simply by existing and doing its job. The amount that it intrudes on our lives should be kept to an absolute, necessary minimum.

Yes, conservatives are generally suspicious of government and government power, because we understand that it concentrates power into the hands of a small group of people, and that power corrupts.

3. For the most part, the Federal Government should have little to do with the regulation of business. There are some exception, but I don't know, from a conservative perspective, those exceptions would be. Feel free to enlighten me here. And Federal government regulations get in the way of US citizens opportunity to attain economic wealth.

What regulations are acceptable generally depends on the business in question. A good place to start looking, though, is the US Constitution, and the relation it sets up between government and business. Regulation of interstate commerce, anyone? General public safety would be another, but it's always - ALWAYS - necessary to keep a close and suspicious eye on how that is defined and implemented, because it's too damned easy for some bureaucrat with delusions of grandeur to expand his own personal power base under the heading of "protecting public safety".

Government should be treated like a big, mean, nasty junkyard dog: necessary, but don't turn your back on it.

4. Conservatives have mixed opinions about whether to abolish Medicaid, Social Security, and Welfare, but think, generally, that these programs would do better at a state or local government level or if taken by private non-profit charity companies. We live in a "nanny" or "welfare" state that provides some citizens a way to abuse the current system. It also facilitates a mentality of unreasonable entitlement.

It's always a good idea to ask yourself, "Does this really HAVE to be done by the government, or is there a more effective way to handle it?" Too many people automatically default to "Let the government do it" without bothering to explore any other possibilities first.

5. Most fiscal issues should be dealt with by either the state or local governments are by the private sector.

6. Nationalized healthcare is a step toward socialism. Leave it to the private sector and insure everyone using incentives such as tax credits.

Your personal concerns are just that: yours. It's no more my responsibility to purchase medical care for you than it is for me to do your grocery shopping to make sure you get proper nutrition.

7. There are those who don't deserve help. The private sector or local governments would better be able to tighten the regulations on who should be helped and who shouldn't. Those who don't deserve it won't survive in this society unless they work.

It's not so much that certain people don't deserve help. It's that you can't fix other people. They have to fix themselves. All you can really do is offer them the opportunity to help themselves. And yes, there are some people who just aren't going to take it. It's not my job to do for them what they flatly refuse to do for themselves.

8. Washington is corrupt and should receive as little money as possible because that money is used to line their pockets and the pockets of lobbyists and special interest groups.

Well, that's not the only reason, but I don't think anyone can honestly argue that DC isn't a corrupt, incestuous little swamp.

Social Conservatism

Conservatives, generally, feel that society should become a more traditional society. Progress usually has negative impacts on society.

Beeep! Sorry, but "progress", by definition, is not negative. The problem here is that you are confusing "change" with "progress". Not all change is progressive. Some is regressive, and some is lateral, and one should be discerning enough to tell the difference, rather than just blindly assuming that any movement must be forward.

1. Roe v. Wade should be rescinded and the states should decide on whether to allow legal abortions or not. For some conservatives this is because they believe the Federal government has no right to act in the capacity to rule on such a decision, and for other conservatives, its moral or religious-based decision.

Yup, although I'd say even the ones who want Roe v. Wade rescinded because they have moral or religious objections to abortion ALSO believe that the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds and illegally legislated from the bench.

2. The Federal government should enforce the Constitution, which, as a result, would protect religion, particularly Christianity, from government intrusion and oppression. Religion, especially, Christianity, are under constant attack in this secular society. Since the founding Fathers were Christian or influenced by Judeo-Christian religions, the nation was founded on those values and should reflect that in it policies.

Not necessarily. It would be GOOD, in my opinion, if our policies reflected Judeo-Christian values, because I believe they're good values, and I also believe that most people in this country share them to one extent or another, even if they're not religious. However, the government has no business discriminating against religion in the pretense that the Constitution requires it to be hostile in that regard. And the nation's policies should reflect the values and desires of its voters (I'd say its people, but if someone's too lazy to vote, they don't deserve to be considered), whatever those may be.

3. Homosexuality is a choice. Homosexual marriages should be banned because that gives "extra" rights to homosexuals to marry and no one should receive unfair treatment under the law.

Nope, wrong again, and prejudicial. Homosexual "marriage" cannot be banned, because no such thing has ever existed. For something to be BANNED, it has to have previously been in place. Conservatives are not the ones attempting to make sweeping changes in the status quo, and to use the word "banned" implies that they are.

4. Affirmative Action is institutionalized racism, therefore unlawful and should be abolished.

5. Conservatives have mixed opinions on stricter jail terms for drug use or dealers, and some even think drugs, at least marijuana, should be legalized. Some sentences, for other crimes, should be made stricter.

Perhaps. Again, we have many more positions concerning crime than merely stricter sentencing.

Other:
1. Strong Defense.

2. The US should be the global economic and military superpower, though some conservatives think this is just what has happened and it won't always be.

Well, it DOESN'T have to be. It's a result of us being the kind of society we are, producing wealth and prosperity for our nation in general. If we change what we are and how we operate, there's no reason we couldn't be as poor and powerless as any other nation on Earth. We don't exactly have a divine right or manifest destiny to be the richest and most powerful. We make it for ourselves.

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 bad, because of over-spending, activist judges, over taxation of the wealthy and of business, and the influence of special interest groups.

Government is a necessary evil, and we have allowed the things about it that are evil to run rampant because we have forgotten the duty of the citizens to watch it closely and suspiciously, and rein it in when we have to.

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

No, we still don't consider society to be mostly bad. We have a mostly good society, built on a bedrock of good, moral, hardworking people with a generous spirit. But there are some parts of our society that have been allowed to become infected with serious rot.

6. Conservatives believe that if you work hard enough you will be successful in the current system. Luck has something to do with it, but hard work can overcome bad luck.

Not quite. Hard work CAN overcome bad luck, but I think we all know that occasionally life just doesn't work out. However, you are exponentially more likely to acquire success through hard work in this system than any other system on Earth. And you definitely are NOT going to acquire success through sitting back and waiting for someone else to take care of you.

7. If more people have the opportunity to successfully attain wealth, just by attaining it will broaden opportunity for more people, which will snowball somewhat like a vicious cycle which isn't vicious. This will reduce poverty, which will reduce crime, and increase prosperity and the quality of living for all in US society.

A rising tide lifts all boats, you know.

8. Human beings are essentially good and only need some regulations for those anti-social elements who may lead society astray.

How's that?

Human beings are both good and bad in essence. While most of us aspire toward our good sides, it's a lot more hard work than being bad is. Society needs to be protected from those who give in to their bad natures, and it needs to encourage everyone else to follow their good natures.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I find it fascinating to note that the conservatives here responded with serious, thoughtful analyses of the OP, and/or statements about their own personal take on conservatism, while the majority of liberals shot straight out of the box to the ad hominem attacks and rudeness. Very enlightening.

why fascinating? predictable is more accurate! that's why it is always a waste of time to reply to these types of gotcha posts!

It's the clockwork-like predictability that I find so fascinating.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why must you interject your snarky assumptions into your supposed OP? Instead of dealing with what is actually said or stood for by conservatives?

I didn't think of it as snarky. That is your perception. I posted it as I saw it. That is how I perceived conservatism. I admit that I have a liberal bias, and that is why I posted this thread: to try to see through the bias with which I see conservatism and get some feedback to better understand the opposite point of view.

Try to realize and remember that you perceive me with a conservative bias.

No... I am not perceiving you thru a "conservative bias"... I am perceiving you as one posting something with an OBVIOUS slant, agenda, and bias... under the false premise of "trying to understand" or be "objective"....

You make obvious attempts to interject your snarky assumption in the middle of some snippets of things others have said, to make yourself look somewhat credible, while trying to appeal to the extremists on the side of your self admitted leftist bias

If you really wanted to gain an understanding... you would leave the OBVIOUS snarky comments out

I actually think he was honestly trying to be as polite and open-minded in his OP as he could be, and it's possible he really didn't realize the points where what he really thought conservatives were about was actually just misleading propaganda he had been spoonfed. The problem here is that while conservatives are acculturated to believe that liberals hold opinions they consider wrong because liberals are misinformed, naive, or at most, stupid, liberals are acculturated to believe that conservatives hold opinions they consider wrong because conservatives are bad, evil people. As such, it is very hard for them to view conservative opinions as anything they should take seriously or view as a valid alternative argument. It doesn't help that honest expressions and assessments of what conservatives really believe are very rarely made available in mainstream culture.

 

[KittenKoder]

What I find odd is that some conservatives on here like to lump all the liberals into one giant group based on a few of the nutjobs who respond while expecting the rest of us not to lump them into one group as well.

Ever stop to think that maybe the smarter liberals were just reading and taking to heart what was posted and that since this wasn't about liberals (until such a sweeping generalization was made) we just had nothing to add?

 

[Annie]

What I find odd is that some conservatives on here like to lump all the liberals into one giant group based on a few of the nutjobs who respond while expecting the rest of us not to lump them into one group as well.

Ever stop to think that maybe the smarter liberals were just reading and taking to heart what was posted and that since this wasn't about liberals (until such a sweeping generalization was made) we just had nothing to add?

I think I addressed that in my first post and clarified it in my second. Meaning, it's not just conservatives, well some of them, not me.

 

[KittenKoder]

What I find odd is that some conservatives on here like to lump all the liberals into one giant group based on a few of the nutjobs who respond while expecting the rest of us not to lump them into one group as well.

Ever stop to think that maybe the smarter liberals were just reading and taking to heart what was posted and that since this wasn't about liberals (until such a sweeping generalization was made) we just had nothing to add?

I think I addressed that in my first post and clarified it in my second. Meaning, it's not just conservatives, well some of them, not me.

I did say some, not all.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You are attempting to tie Conservatism to Christianity in a negative way and in doing so bring offense to both. If you fail to accept that you are simply lying or unaware of your actual intent...

That is no different than tying Liberalism to Atheism in an equally negative way.

Each philosophy/belief/non-belief can comfortably coexist with one another. There are conservatives who do not attend church and speak very little of their faith or lack thereof. Yes, there is a Bible-belt conservatism that remains an integral part of the movement, but within even that example are far more open minds than is presented in the mainstream media and the liberal left - just as their are actual open minded examples to be found in the liberal left regarding their views of Christian Conservatism.

You would do well to broaden your perspective as the original intent of your post would suggest - not attempt an end run of an already preconceived and deeply held belief regarding an already formed answer to your own question.

That would be akin to someone opening a thread stating they want to understand what homosexuals really want and then ending it with saying that they probably don't really know what they want because they are stupid, over-emotional fags.

That would simply be a pre-formed reply to an originally dishonest question.

Dig it?

What attacks have I made?! Are you people delirious?

TO ME I really perceived that that REALLY was conservatism! It isn't an attack!

I don't know ANY conservatives, at least, not well. And the great thing about USMB is that I can talk about religion and politics all I want and not be considered rude, where as in my personal life with friends and family at dinner (or whatever other examples you can think of), it might not be inappropriate.

To me, and I was inaccurate it seems, Christianity and Conservatism WERE tied together. There were exceptions, yes, but generally speaking, that I how I perceived it.

And from what I perceived, Christians wouldn't perceive what I wrote as negative, but as accurate. At least, I hoped it was accurate, and if it wasn't, then a nice, polite conservative who obviously understands conservatism better than I do, would kindly correct my misunderstanding or mistake.

Instead, I am being attacked! I'm not ATTACKING YOUR BELIEFS! I'm trying to understand them. HONESTLY! I don't know if its the overarching tone of the dialogue between liberals and conservatives that leads people on USMB to assume the worst of each other, but I am not attacking conservatism. I'm NOT lying.

This whole thread is an attempt to broaden my understanding. Get over yourselves. Why do you continue to accuse me of lying and dishonesty?! Sheesh!

I hope you will notice that, while I have a well-deserved reputation for being impatient and bad-tempered, I have recognized your attempt at polite, honestly curious fact-seeking and tried to respond in kind. There ARE occasions when you have been a bit offensive, but in context, I have credited them more to ignorance of the subject than any desire to actually offend.

I think you might be well-served, as would all people who hold a blind prejudice against a group they are unfamiliar with, by getting out and actually becoming acquainted with some conservatives in your regular life. You say you don't really know any, and just as with a white person who doesn't personally know any black people, it makes you very susceptible to incorrect stereotypes about them.

 

[Annie]

You are attempting to tie Conservatism to Christianity in a negative way and in doing so bring offense to both. If you fail to accept that you are simply lying or unaware of your actual intent...

That is no different than tying Liberalism to Atheism in an equally negative way.

Each philosophy/belief/non-belief can comfortably coexist with one another. There are conservatives who do not attend church and speak very little of their faith or lack thereof. Yes, there is a Bible-belt conservatism that remains an integral part of the movement, but within even that example are far more open minds than is presented in the mainstream media and the liberal left - just as their are actual open minded examples to be found in the liberal left regarding their views of Christian Conservatism.

You would do well to broaden your perspective as the original intent of your post would suggest - not attempt an end run of an already preconceived and deeply held belief regarding an already formed answer to your own question.

That would be akin to someone opening a thread stating they want to understand what homosexuals really want and then ending it with saying that they probably don't really know what they want because they are stupid, over-emotional fags.

That would simply be a pre-formed reply to an originally dishonest question.

Dig it?

What attacks have I made?! Are you people delirious?

TO ME I really perceived that that REALLY was conservatism! It isn't an attack!

I don't know ANY conservatives, at least, not well. And the great thing about USMB is that I can talk about religion and politics all I want and not be considered rude, where as in my personal life with friends and family at dinner (or whatever other examples you can think of), it might not be inappropriate.

To me, and I was inaccurate it seems, Christianity and Conservatism WERE tied together. There were exceptions, yes, but generally speaking, that I how I perceived it.

And from what I perceived, Christians wouldn't perceive what I wrote as negative, but as accurate. At least, I hoped it was accurate, and if it wasn't, then a nice, polite conservative who obviously understands conservatism better than I do, would kindly correct my misunderstanding or mistake.

Instead, I am being attacked! I'm not ATTACKING YOUR BELIEFS! I'm trying to understand them. HONESTLY! I don't know if its the overarching tone of the dialogue between liberals and conservatives that leads people on USMB to assume the worst of each other, but I am not attacking conservatism. I'm NOT lying.

This whole thread is an attempt to broaden my understanding. Get over yourselves. Why do you continue to accuse me of lying and dishonesty?! Sheesh!

In all honesty, I don't think you really paid much mind to my responses, other than thanking me for dealing with point by point. I'm conservative, but not of a zealot religious bent. Not by a long shot.

 

[oreo]

oreo, correct that fannie and freddie did NOT guarantee any purchase of these ARM subprime loans that caused our problems.

these companies decided all by themselves to venture in to this area of risky loan business, they didn't even have customers qualify by any means to get many of these loans....but banks and institutions like BOA, wells fargo, bear sterns were buying these mortgages from these fly by night lenders not requiring them to raise their standards and masking their riskiness by putting them in to MBS, securities, and selling them off to our mutual funds, pension funds and retirement funds and foreign investors....by giving them the lowest risk rating of tripple A.....

Fannie & Freddie did in fact GUARANTEE sub-prime loans. Jimmy Carter started Fannie Mae clear back in the late 1970's out of that came ARM or "adjustable rate mortgages" which is the cornerstone of Fannie/Freddie. "In order to loan out to minorities & lower income who typically could not qualify for a 30 year fixed interest conventional loan." This is what Fannie/Freddie is all about! In fact-- 40% of the Fannie/Freddie portolio was put into guaranteeing "risky" loans. I agree with the rest of what you say. But there is absolutely NO denying that our government by pressuring banks into lending money to risky borrowers--backed by the American taxpayer were the ORIGINAL instigators of this economic collapse.

As an example: Take a small home town banker. Do you think for one single minute that a banker would loan out hundreds of thousands of dollars to a prospective home buyer--that he knew had bad credit, could not come up with a down payment & did not make the money to qualify for a fixed 30 year fixed interest rate. Of course they wouldn't.

Now take this same banker & tell them the Federal government is guaranteeing this loan 100%. And by the way--the federal government is insisting that the bank makes this loan--based upon "the governments" new lower credit, no down payment & income standards.

This is exactly what has happened. This 10 year old article cannot be denied. Again, it was a democrat loaded banking congressional boards that stopped every single effort to bring Fannie/Freddie under control.

Did individual people take advantage of it. Of course they did. Did banks take advantage of it. Yes, of course. Did Wall street take advantage of it. You bet.

But if the government had managed Fannie/Freddie in a prudent manner & kept requirements for guaranteed mortgages even to par with standard banking & mortgage loan institution standards, we would not be in the situation we find ourselves today.

This is exactly what happens when the federal government works their fingers into the private sector. They always manage to screw it up--& we--the American taxpayer end up getting screwed.

 

[Gunny]

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

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.

In other words, you don't know.

 

[Gunny]

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

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.

I wondered who would be the thread killer. Didn't take you long to close the dialogue.. Thank goodness it wasn't a conservative.

Raybaughusmc, red dawn, sealybobo, chris and a couple of other lefties are like the dogs that roam the neighborhood knocking over trash cans adn spreading trash all over the place without a single clue what they are looking for.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

I find it fascinating to note that the conservatives here responded with serious, thoughtful analyses of the OP, and/or statements about their own personal take on conservatism, while the majority of liberals shot straight out of the box to the ad hominem attacks and rudeness. Very enlightening.

Yes you have discovered a profound truth. Only liberals use ad hominem attacks. The conservatives here never stoop to that level.

Imagine if we were on a thread about what liberal ideology is. I am sure the conservatives would be giving their thoughtful convictions and the liberals would be doing all of the ad hominem attacks.