What happened to the compassionate conservative?

[Annie]

There were never a thing called "Compassionate" Conservative.

Now--Bleeding Heart Libertarians do exists!!! But no such thing as a "compassionate" conservative.

If you are a conservative with compassion, then you really need to reconsider why you are a conservative.

You're wrong. The most numerous and generous contributors to voluntary organizations both with time and money are conservatives. Why? They believe that anyone can run into rough patches and need help, but the help should have parameters and education.

 

[garyd]

Compassion sir is judged by what you give not by how much you compel others to give.

And the right in literaly dozens of studies gives far more to charities than do those on the left. So please tell me who is compassionate and who isn't.

 

[Sinatra]

Was watching some of the Charlie Rose show on PBS the other night and they had the lone republican leaning independent of MSNBC Joe Scarborough and he brought up that what he misses most and sees missing from todays conservative republicans is the compassion of the Reagan years and sees that as a major hole that needs to be filled and went on to talk about how all he sees is hate out of todays party and I have to agree. Get rid of the hate filled fear mongering propaganda machine that is todays conservative and get back to the true roots of what conservatism is all about and you guys will bounce back. Stop listening to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hannity and think about what conservatism was founded on and you can get some control back.

True conservatism has historically been the most compassionate of the major political ideologies in America.

What we have today is far too little compassion from any of the major political parties. Republicans are upset over their current minority party status, while Democrats are pushing fowared with their ever expanding big government entitlement agenda which is among the most destructive and non-compassionate forms of governence in the nation's history...

 

[alan1]

Economic centrists
Socially liberal.

Remember--a Conservative is economic to the Right
Socially authoritarian.

That whooooooshing sound you hear is my point flying above your head.

You do not have a point.

That whooshing sound must be so common in your world that you don't even hear it anymore.

 

[Toro]

Was watching some of the Charlie Rose show on PBS the other night and they had the lone republican leaning independent of MSNBC Joe Scarborough and he brought up that what he misses most and sees missing from todays conservative republicans is the compassion of the Reagan years and sees that as a major hole that needs to be filled and went on to talk about how all he sees is hate out of todays party and I have to agree. Get rid of the hate filled fear mongering propaganda machine that is todays conservative and get back to the true roots of what conservatism is all about and you guys will bounce back. Stop listening to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hannity and think about what conservatism was founded on and you can get some control back.

I generally agree with this. I find the rhetoric, at least from the Republican media and the electoral campaigns, to be harsh and mean-spirited. It is very negative.

 

[garyd]

And you think the crap from Move.on and DailyKos and DU isn't? Better watch out there is something in that Koolaid.

 

[Xenophon]

What happened to the honest liberal?

 

[Avatar4321]

What happened to the honest liberal?

What ever happened to honesty, period?

 

[Bfgrn]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBMdN4nl7x0"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBMdN4nl7x0[/ame]


Have you ever heard of a bleeding heart Republican?
Paul Craig Roberts - the father of Reaganomics

 

[Father Time]

What happened to the honest liberal?

What ever happened to honesty, period?

Oh that's been killed off years ago and replaced with "the end justifies the means".

 

[code1211]

One was something like, doing something for someone that they can and should do for themselves is the worst thing that you can do to anyone.

To the extent that you agree with that statement is probably the extent to which you are a Conservative.[/QUOTE]


Messed up the quote thingy again. Sorry.
The following was quoted from amrchaos:
1.Find some one that will argue against that statement heart and soul.

Good luck. I think you have better chances of finding the Easter bunny or Leprechauns.

2) Explain why only conservatives will agree with this?

By the way--I am not a conservative.[/QUOTE]
end quoteI don't think that anyone is either a pure, party line Conservative or a pure party line Liberal.

My mother was absolutely against abortion, absolutely in favor of unionism, very religious, believed that acceptance of public assistance was a shameful act, believed that minorities were inferior and that the military was just slightly less respectable than the priesthood. She voted a straight Democratic ticket in every election from FDR forward.

She saw herself as a Democrat. She saw Republicans as devils incranate for no particular reason. They were something like protestants in her mind. No matter. How people indentify themselves is largely a personnal matter. Lord knows, how I might view you should have little or no impact on how YOU view you. We're all, I suspect, trying to do the best we can with what we have.

That said, I don't think that Liberalism or Conservatism has any further necessary role in our lives than to wisely spend the money that they have been given. Fiscal Conservatism will lead to lower spending. Being Fiscally Liberal will lead to higher spending. In our political system, there is no Party the restrains spending, so I do not have a Party indentification.

Socially, I see value in most of what both parties hold dear. Issue by issue, I probably take about half from both sides of the fence. HOWEVER, socially, I see no need for any Federal spending on these things at all. That's what forces me to say that I am a Conservative. This kind of spending is a States Rights thing.

Do you see yourself as a fiscal liberal, a social liberal or both?

 

[edthecynic]

]All [/B]the attempts to silence anyone have come from the left.

Typical CON$ervative revisionism, trying to pass the GOP off as Leftists!!!

I remember the Smothers Brothers crucified LBJ over the War, but he never silenced them. But when Tricky Dickie Nixon was elected he not only got CBS to kick them off the air, he had them blackballed from TV.
More recently the GOP had Alan Keyes arrested when he tried to speak at the 1996 GOP primary debate in which he was a candidate for president.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxqP1O1_K4w[/ame]

 

[amrchaos]

One was something like, doing something for someone that they can and should do for themselves is the worst thing that you can do to anyone.

To the extent that you agree with that statement is probably the extent to which you are a Conservative.

Messed up the quote thingy again. Sorry.
The following was quoted from amrchaos:
1.Find some one that will argue against that statement heart and soul.

Good luck. I think you have better chances of finding the Easter bunny or Leprechauns.

2) Explain why only conservatives will agree with this?

By the way--I am not a conservative.[/QUOTE]
end quoteI don't think that anyone is either a pure, party line Conservative or a pure party line Liberal.

My mother was absolutely against abortion, absolutely in favor of unionism, very religious, believed that acceptance of public assistance was a shameful act, believed that minorities were inferior and that the military was just slightly less respectable than the priesthood. She voted a straight Democratic ticket in every election from FDR forward.

She saw herself as a Democrat. She saw Republicans as devils incranate for no particular reason. They were something like protestants in her mind. No matter. How people indentify themselves is largely a personnal matter. Lord knows, how I might view you should have little or no impact on how YOU view you. We're all, I suspect, trying to do the best we can with what we have.

That said, I don't think that Liberalism or Conservatism has any further necessary role in our lives than to wisely spend the money that they have been given. Fiscal Conservatism will lead to lower spending. Being Fiscally Liberal will lead to higher spending. In our political system, there is no Party the restrains spending, so I do not have a Party indentification.

Socially, I see value in most of what both parties hold dear. Issue by issue, I probably take about half from both sides of the fence. HOWEVER, socially, I see no need for any Federal spending on these things at all. That's what forces me to say that I am a Conservative. This kind of spending is a States Rights thing.

Do you see yourself as a fiscal liberal, a social liberal or both?[/QUOTE]

I view myself as a social liberal. Probably near to a social anarchist except I do understand the need for social order--but rarely agrees on the basis for civil order as dictated by many civil organizations(Government(nat, state, local), religious groups, civic groups)


I do not believe that government does has a say in your household--I also believe that neither does your neighbors, priests or doctors. Your home is your last vestige of privacy.

Also, the whole concept that marriage belongs to religious order only is a bunch bull crap since the religious groups have never complained how marriage has become "Nationalized" over the decades. The Moral majority let Big brother take it over through regulations , tax breaks(never thought that could be a key to nationalism now did you?) and even laws that dictates who can and cannot marry.
Because of this, I really do not care if you marry with your sex, your family, or your FARM. Whatever that makes you happy as long as I do not have to be apart of it.

On taxes--That is the cost of civilization. Now here is Something I do not get from the left. Corporations pay taxes-to the government-why should they be shunned from recieving a bailout? For the right, Corporate bailouts is not socialism--it is corporatism. Yes, I support some forms of corporatism and socialism. If done right, the practice can be done to maintain order indirectly. That is--instead of jailing a man for stealing a loaf, provide the social/economic framework that will encourage that same person to find a job so he can buy instead of steal. That requires some socialism and corporatism. Not just one--both.

 

[code1211]

I view myself as a social liberal. Probably near to a social anarchist except I do understand the need for social order--but rarely agrees on the basis for civil order as dictated by many civil organizations(Government(nat, state, local), religious groups, civic groups)


I do not believe that government does has a say in your household--I also believe that neither does your neighbors, priests or doctors. Your home is your last vestige of privacy.

Also, the whole concept that marriage belongs to religious order only is a bunch bull crap since the religious groups have never complained how marriage has become "Nationalized" over the decades. The Moral majority let Big brother take it over through regulations , tax breaks(never thought that could be a key to nationalism now did you?) and even laws that dictates who can and cannot marry.
Because of this, I really do not care if you marry with your sex, your family, or your FARM. Whatever that makes you happy as long as I do not have to be apart of it.

On taxes--That is the cost of civilization. Now here is Something I do not get from the left. Corporations pay taxes-to the government-why should they be shunned from recieving a bailout? For the right, Corporate bailouts is not socialism--it is corporatism. Yes, I support some forms of corporatism and socialism. If done right, the practice can be done to maintain order indirectly. That is--instead of jailing a man for stealing a loaf, provide the social/economic framework that will encourage that same person to find a job so he can buy instead of steal. That requires some socialism and corporatism. Not just one--both.[/QUOTE]

amrchaos quote ends here.


It's interesting that we both see the importance of the government at all levels keeping their collective nosses out of our business. You feel that the best group to assure that this occurs is the Liberal and I see it as the Conservative. In my experience, Liberals want to pass a law on anything that they can think of. Conservatives would prefer to use the laws already in place. Liberals would prefer to have judges make new law based on what is stylish and Conservatives would prefer that judges read and enforce the current laws.

Corporatism is a word that I've never heard. In Nazi Germany, corporations, like Krupp and Meserschmidt, were privately held but governmentally directed. All of the social sins aside, that was the essence of Naziism. It is neither Socialism nor Capitalism. Albert Spear, who was a government employee, directed the manufacturing of the Reich. The US Government recently fired the head of General motors. Does this make anyone else worry?

Regarding our taxes, we are currently backwards on this and it shows in how the government thinks. As individual people and businesses, we are taxed. we send money to Washigton and Washington then doles it out to us again. Why?

I would like to see a tax system in which the Feds create a budget as they do now and that budget, for the sake of argument, might turn out to equal 3 trillion dollars. Take that number and divide it by the population. Again, for the sake of argument, let's say the population is 300 million. Now, how should the Feds get that money? The current system is a tax code of 60 thousand pages and the IRS which employs millions of people.

I have a system that reduces the pages of regulation to 1 and the workforce to 1. Here it is:

Divide the budget by the population. 3 trillion divided by 300 million equals 10,000 dollars for every man, woman and child in America. Take that base number and state by stae, multiply that $10,000 by the states population. The people and businesses pay taxes to the state and the states each send a check to the feds to satisfy their portion of the budget.

Each state can build casinos, tax natural resources, raise sales taxes, income taxes, property taxes or anything else. The source of the monies would be a state by state creative endeavor. This would eliminate the pork in Washington and most certainly reduce spending and the ridiculous appropriations process that corrupts all that touch it.

The best way to get power TO the people is to get power NEARER to the people. In this country, power is money and vice versa. Take the money out of Washington and guess what leaves with it? If you said "power", your right. Next, guess where it goes. Right back home to you and me.

 

[Gunny]

]All [/B]the attempts to silence anyone have come from the left.

Typical CON$ervative revisionism, trying to pass the GOP off as Leftists!!!

I remember the Smothers Brothers crucified LBJ over the War, but he never silenced them. But when Tricky Dickie Nixon was elected he not only got CBS to kick them off the air, he had them blackballed from TV.
More recently the GOP had Alan Keyes arrested when he tried to speak at the 1996 GOP primary debate in which he was a candidate for president.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxqP1O1_K4w[/ame]

The GOP is leftist. Why do you think they lost their conservative support? It damned sure wasn't because lefties are a bigger percentage of voters than the right.

Typical leftwing revision: claiming something isn't what it is.

 

[Gunny]

I view myself as a social liberal. Probably near to a social anarchist except I do understand the need for social order--but rarely agrees on the basis for civil order as dictated by many civil organizations(Government(nat, state, local), religious groups, civic groups)


I do not believe that government does has a say in your household--I also believe that neither does your neighbors, priests or doctors. Your home is your last vestige of privacy.

Also, the whole concept that marriage belongs to religious order only is a bunch bull crap since the religious groups have never complained how marriage has become "Nationalized" over the decades. The Moral majority let Big brother take it over through regulations , tax breaks(never thought that could be a key to nationalism now did you?) and even laws that dictates who can and cannot marry.
Because of this, I really do not care if you marry with your sex, your family, or your FARM. Whatever that makes you happy as long as I do not have to be apart of it.

On taxes--That is the cost of civilization. Now here is Something I do not get from the left. Corporations pay taxes-to the government-why should they be shunned from recieving a bailout? For the right, Corporate bailouts is not socialism--it is corporatism. Yes, I support some forms of corporatism and socialism. If done right, the practice can be done to maintain order indirectly. That is--instead of jailing a man for stealing a loaf, provide the social/economic framework that will encourage that same person to find a job so he can buy instead of steal. That requires some socialism and corporatism. Not just one--both.

amrchaos quote ends here.

It's interesting that we both see the importance of the government at all levels keeping their collective nosses out of our business. You feel that the best group to assure that this occurs is the Liberal and I see it as the Conservative. In my experience, Liberals want to pass a law on anything that they can think of. Conservatives would prefer to use the laws already in place. Liberals would prefer to have judges make new law based on what is stylish and Conservatives would prefer that judges read and enforce the current laws.

Corporatism is a word that I've never heard. In Nazi Germany, corporations, like Krupp and Meserschmidt, were privately held but governmentally directed. All of the social sins aside, that was the essence of Naziism. It is neither Socialism nor Capitalism. Albert Spear, who was a government employee, directed the manufacturing of the Reich. The US Government recently fired the head of General motors. Does this make anyone else worry?

Regarding our taxes, we are currently backwards on this and it shows in how the government thinks. As individual people and businesses, we are taxed. we send money to Washigton and Washington then doles it out to us again. Why?

I would like to see a tax system in which the Feds create a budget as they do now and that budget, for the sake of argument, might turn out to equal 3 trillion dollars. Take that number and divide it by the population. Again, for the sake of argument, let's say the population is 300 million. Now, how should the Feds get that money? The current system is a tax code of 60 thousand pages and the IRS which employs millions of people.

I have a system that reduces the pages of regulation to 1 and the workforce to 1. Here it is:

Divide the budget by the population. 3 trillion divided by 300 million equals 10,000 dollars for every man, woman and child in America. Take that base number and state by stae, multiply that $10,000 by the states population. The people and businesses pay taxes to the state and the states each send a check to the feds to satisfy their portion of the budget.

Each state can build casinos, tax natural resources, raise sales taxes, income taxes, property taxes or anything else. The source of the monies would be a state by state creative endeavor. This would eliminate the pork in Washington and most certainly reduce spending and the ridiculous appropriations process that corrupts all that touch it.

The best way to get power TO the people is to get power NEARER to the people. In this country, power is money and vice versa. Take the money out of Washington and guess what leaves with it? If you said "power", your right. Next, guess where it goes. Right back home to you and me.

Would you like a class on the quote feature?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Was watching some of the Charlie Rose show on PBS the other night and they had the lone republican leaning independent of MSNBC Joe Scarborough and he brought up that what he misses most and sees missing from todays conservative republicans is the compassion of the Reagan years and sees that as a major hole that needs to be filled and went on to talk about how all he sees is hate out of todays party and I have to agree. Get rid of the hate filled fear mongering propaganda machine that is todays conservative and get back to the true roots of what conservatism is all about and you guys will bounce back. Stop listening to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hannity and think about what conservatism was founded on and you can get some control back.

Tell ya what sport.... take your own advice, clean YOUR party up before telling US what to do. The last 8 years were nothing but hate and venom with almost zero substance to the hate. AND now YOU want to advice US on not being as rude, evil and hateful as YOU have been.

Ohh and it hasn't stopped. YOUR party is busy vilifying Soldiers, Christians, Veterans, Right to life people and a whole slew of people that are not cow towing to their opinion.

Go ahead lead by example, show us how it is done.

 

[edthecynic]

]All [/B]the attempts to silence anyone have come from the left.

Typical CON$ervative revisionism, trying to pass the GOP off as Leftists!!!

I remember the Smothers Brothers crucified LBJ over the War, but he never silenced them. But when Tricky Dickie Nixon was elected he not only got CBS to kick them off the air, he had them blackballed from TV.
More recently the GOP had Alan Keyes arrested when he tried to speak at the 1996 GOP primary debate in which he was a candidate for president.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxqP1O1_K4w[/ame]

The GOP is leftist. Why do you think they lost their conservative support? It damned sure wasn't because lefties are a bigger percentage of voters than the right.

Typical leftwing revision: claiming something isn't what it is.

ROFLMAO
No one can say you aren't original.

 

[Gunny]

Typical CON$ervative revisionism, trying to pass the GOP off as Leftists!!!

I remember the Smothers Brothers crucified LBJ over the War, but he never silenced them. But when Tricky Dickie Nixon was elected he not only got CBS to kick them off the air, he had them blackballed from TV.
More recently the GOP had Alan Keyes arrested when he tried to speak at the 1996 GOP primary debate in which he was a candidate for president.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxqP1O1_K4w

The GOP is leftist. Why do you think they lost their conservative support? It damned sure wasn't because lefties are a bigger percentage of voters than the right.

Typical leftwing revision: claiming something isn't what it is.

ROFLMAO
No one can say you aren't original.

Hardly. Seems everyone gets it but the left. Them being to the right of YOU does not a conservative make.

 

[edthecynic]

The GOP is leftist. Why do you think they lost their conservative support? It damned sure wasn't because lefties are a bigger percentage of voters than the right.

Typical leftwing revision: claiming something isn't what it is.

ROFLMAO
No one can say you aren't original.

Hardly. Seems everyone gets it but the left. Them being to the right of YOU does not a conservative make.

Just as being left of YOU doesn't even make them moderate CON$ let alone Liberal.