What beliefs define a 21st Century American conservative?

[Dr.Drock]

Conservatives want to maintain (conserve) the status quo, in as much as it means maintaining the benefits they receive under the current status quo.

The fear is that they might lose some or all of the power and/or wealthy that they've compiled, of which they feel deserving. They insist the status quo is not to blame nor the cause of any social ill, for if it were to change, so would their circumstances.

Others, who aren't part of the percentage that is reaping benefits with the current status quo want change that will give them some of the benefits formerly reserved for the elite, reserved for those in control.

Translation: Loot the wealthy.

And someone in here claimed liberals don't hate the rich.

I see this is another post that flies over your head.

Funny, it's not that deep and yet your drowning.

Funny, the way your using you're words is going right over you're head.

As I'm sure that sentence did.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What do they believe in and why are they so quick to attack other self described conservatives as RINO's?

Postscript: Upon reflection this thread limits conservative to the Republican Party; I know many self defined conservatives see themselves as Independents or Libertarian, so let the question be: What do 21st Century conservaitves believe (and skip the snarky second phrase).

They don't know what they believe until they tune in to Rush. I think it would make a wonderful modern day radio version of the Wizard of Oz.

"Pay no attention to the fat man behind the plexiglass!"
​

Hmm..

There is far too much diversity in conservative beliefs to answer the question.
Best anyone can do is answer what he, as a conservative, believes.
Not surprisingly, the rabid liberal toadies fail to recognize either point.

Thanks for the verification.

 

[Mustang]

What do they believe in and why are they so quick to attack other self described conservatives as RINO's?

Postscript: Upon reflection this thread limits conservative to the Republican Party; I know many self defined conservatives see themselves as Independents or Libertarian, so let the question be: What do 21st Century conservaitves believe (and skip the snarky second phrase).

They don't know what they believe until they tune in to Rush. I think it would make a wonderful modern day radio version of the Wizard of Oz.

"Pay no attention to the fat man behind the plexiglass!"
​

Hmm..

There is far too much diversity in conservative beliefs to answer the question.
Best anyone can do is answer what he, as a conservative, believes.
Not surprisingly, the rabid liberal toadies fail to recognize either point.

Thanks for the verification.

You need a sense of humor.

 

[Douger]

Too easy !

 

[Old Rocks]

Conservatives want to maintain (conserve) the status quo, in as much as it means maintaining the benefits they receive under the current status quo.

The fear is that they might lose some or all of the power and/or wealthy that they've compiled, of which they feel deserving. They insist the status quo is not to blame nor the cause of any social ill, for if it were to change, so would their circumstances.

Others, who aren't part of the percentage that is reaping benefits with the current status quo want change that will give them some of the benefits formerly reserved for the elite, reserved for those in control.

Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).

Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

So that is why you bastards are always talking about bombing somebody? Why you start unneccessary wars?

The experiance of your ancestors is adaquete for making rules for the internet? For a society in the 21st century?

Ah yes, the evils of Social Security and Medicare. The very idea that all of society needs address the care of the individuals within that society. Let's just go back to the ethics of the cave, every man for himself, brother against brother, family against all other families, tribe against all other tribes, state against all other states. All against all. Works so damned well in places like Afghanistan, we really should totally emulate them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ah yes, the evils of Social Security and Medicare. The very idea that all of society needs address the care of the individuals within that society. Let's just go back to the ethics of the cave, every man for himself, brother against brother, family against all other families, tribe against all other tribes, state against all other states. All against all. Works so damned well in places like Afghanistan, we really should totally emulate them.

It's rather small minded to presume that opposing SocSec and Medicare equates to an opposition to helping the needy.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ah yes, the evils of Social Security and Medicare. The very idea that all of society needs address the care of the individuals within that society. Let's just go back to the ethics of the cave, every man for himself, brother against brother, family against all other families, tribe against all other tribes, state against all other states. All against all. Works so damned well in places like Afghanistan, we really should totally emulate them.

It's rather small minded to presume that opposing SocSec and Medicare equates to an opposition to helping the needy.

So? The Left is small-minded. They define any program by its stated goals, not whether it would actually work or not.
The truth is every program initiated by the Left ahs been a drastic failure, throwing millions into enduring grinding poverty and keeping them there year after year. The Left hates the poor, hates blacks, hates minorities, and hates women and hates children. This is obvious because every program designed to "help" them has only made their situation worse.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Ah yes, the evils of Social Security and Medicare. The very idea that all of society needs address the care of the individuals within that society. Let's just go back to the ethics of the cave, every man for himself, brother against brother, family against all other families, tribe against all other tribes, state against all other states. All against all. Works so damned well in places like Afghanistan, we really should totally emulate them.

It's rather small minded to presume that opposing SocSec and Medicare equates to an opposition to helping the needy.

Social Security is probably the biggest of all american government scams.

Old people would be a lot better of if they never had to pay into it and could just keep and invest their money on their own accord, but that's somehow immoral to liberals.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ah yes, the evils of Social Security and Medicare. The very idea that all of society needs address the care of the individuals within that society. Let's just go back to the ethics of the cave, every man for himself, brother against brother, family against all other families, tribe against all other tribes, state against all other states. All against all. Works so damned well in places like Afghanistan, we really should totally emulate them.

It's rather small minded to presume that opposing SocSec and Medicare equates to an opposition to helping the needy.

Social Security is probably the biggest of all american government scams.

Old people would be a lot better of if they never had to pay into it and could just keep and invest their money on their own accord, but that's somehow immoral to liberals.

Liberals defend SocSec not because of a desire to help old people, but to protect their political power - it buys them votes from said old people, and it gets them money they can use to buy votes from others.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Following the constitution.

Yet what does that mean exactly? When many decisions by (supposedly) learned jurists are decided 5-4. How does one "follow the Constitution"?

“The originalism looks to the original public-meaning of the Constitution and its amendments at the time they were enacted. The meaning of the Constitution must remain the same, until it is properly changed. And it cannot be changed unilaterally by the courts, or even by courts acting in conjunction with other branches of government.” Professor Randy Barnett, in “Originalism,” p. 262.

I'm still reading this: http://randybarnett.com/nonoriginalists.htm

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's rather small minded to presume that opposing SocSec and Medicare equates to an opposition to helping the needy.

Social Security is probably the biggest of all american government scams.

Old people would be a lot better of if they never had to pay into it and could just keep and invest their money on their own accord, but that's somehow immoral to liberals.

Liberals defend SocSec not because of a desire to help old people, but to protect their political power - it buys them votes from said old people, and it gets them money they can use to buy votes from others.

Social Security works. It is not a scam or a ponzi scheme, it simply works. Not everyone has a defined benefit retirement or a 401 k, not everyone earns enough to save for retirement and even those who do and did got fucked when the stock market nearly crashed and some financial institutions too big to fail failed. It is a safety net and prevents senior citizens from living in abject poverty.

 

[Full-Auto]

Social Security is probably the biggest of all american government scams.

Old people would be a lot better of if they never had to pay into it and could just keep and invest their money on their own accord, but that's somehow immoral to liberals.

Liberals defend SocSec not because of a desire to help old people, but to protect their political power - it buys them votes from said old people, and it gets them money they can use to buy votes from others.

Social Security works. It is not a scam or a ponzi scheme, it simply works. Not everyone has a defined benefit retirement or a 401 k, not everyone earns enough to save for retirement and even those who do and did got fucked when the stock market nearly crashed. It is a safety net and prevents senior citizens from living in abject poverty.

How long do you think the ponzi scheme will continue to work?

Keep in mind all funds go to the general fund and our government insists we fund it less.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Conservatives want to maintain (conserve) the status quo, in as much as it means maintaining the benefits they receive under the current status quo.

The fear is that they might lose some or all of the power and/or wealthy that they've compiled, of which they feel deserving. They insist the status quo is not to blame nor the cause of any social ill, for if it were to change, so would their circumstances.

Others, who aren't part of the percentage that is reaping benefits with the current status quo want change that will give them some of the benefits formerly reserved for the elite, reserved for those in control.

Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).

Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

So that is why you bastards are always talking about bombing somebody? Why you start unneccessary wars?

The experiance of your ancestors is adaquete for making rules for the internet? For a society in the 21st century?

Ah yes, the evils of Social Security and Medicare. The very idea that all of society needs address the care of the individuals within that society. Let's just go back to the ethics of the cave, every man for himself, brother against brother, family against all other families, tribe against all other tribes, state against all other states. All against all. Works so damned well in places like Afghanistan, we really should totally emulate them.

As usual, you are on the wrong side of the facts.

It is conservatives who give the most charity, time, effort....while liberals give no more than lip service.

Should I say 'Lib-service' to the idea of helping others?


For your edification:

1. "In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals.

The book, titled "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" (Basic Books, $26), is due for release Nov. 24.

When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."
Newsvine - Philanthropy Expert Says Conservatives Are More Generous -- Beliefnet.com

2. "Brooks found that conservatives donate more in time, services and even blood than other Americans, noting that if liberals and moderates gave as much blood as conservatives do, the blood supply would increase by about 45 percent.

They ought to set up blood banks at tea parties.

On average, a person who attends religious services and does not believe in the redistribution of income will give away 100 times more -- and 50 times more to secular charities -- than a person who does not attend religious services and strongly believes in the redistribution of income.

Secular liberals, the second largest group coming in at 10 percent of the population, were the whitest and richest of the four groups. (Some of you may also know them as "insufferable blowhards.") These "bleeding-heart tightwads," as New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof calls them, were the second stingiest, just behind secular conservatives, who are mostly young, poor, cranky white guys."
Scrooge Was A Liberal - HUMAN EVENTS

3. Want an example?
Sure.


Looking at the ten-year total of Biden’s giving, one percent would have been $24,500. One half of one percent would have been $12,250. One quarter of one percent would have been $6,125. And one eighth of one percent would have been $3,062 — just below what Biden actually contributed.

“The average American household gives about two percent of adjusted gross income,” says Arthur Brooks, the Syracuse University scholar, soon to take over as head of the American Enterprise Institute, who has done extensive research on American giving. “On average, [Biden] is not giving more than one tenth as much as the average American household, and that is evidence that he doesn’t share charitable values with the average American.”
Byron York 9/15/08 NR

Another?
4. Up until recent years when their income increased sharply from book revenues and a Senate salary, Obama's family donated a relatively minor amount of its earnings to charity. From 2000 through 2004, the senator and his wife never gave more than $3,500 a year in charitable donations -- about 1 percent of their annual earnings.(Sam Stein Huffington Post)


Rocks...don't you get tired of being wrong?

 

[The Rabbi]

Social Security is probably the biggest of all american government scams.

Old people would be a lot better of if they never had to pay into it and could just keep and invest their money on their own accord, but that's somehow immoral to liberals.

Liberals defend SocSec not because of a desire to help old people, but to protect their political power - it buys them votes from said old people, and it gets them money they can use to buy votes from others.

Social Security works. It is not a scam or a ponzi scheme, it simply works. Not everyone has a defined benefit retirement or a 401 k, not everyone earns enough to save for retirement and even those who do and did got fucked when the stock market nearly crashed and some financial institutions too big to fail failed. It is a safety net and prevents senior citizens from living in abject poverty.

If it worked it wouldn't be going bankrupt.
It is a Ponzi scheme. It takes money from new suckers to pay off old suckers.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Social Security is probably the biggest of all american government scams.

Old people would be a lot better of if they never had to pay into it and could just keep and invest their money on their own accord, but that's somehow immoral to liberals.

Liberals defend SocSec not because of a desire to help old people, but to protect their political power - it buys them votes from said old people, and it gets them money they can use to buy votes from others.

Social Security works. It is not a scam or a ponzi scheme, it simply works. Not everyone has a defined benefit retirement or a 401 k, not everyone earns enough to save for retirement and even those who do and did got fucked when the stock market nearly crashed and some financial institutions too big to fail failed. It is a safety net and prevents senior citizens from living in abject poverty.

Nothing here negates what I said.

 

[Mustang]

Too easy !

I love that!

 

[WillowTree]

What do they believe in and why are they so quick to attack other self described conservatives as RINO's?

Postscript: Upon reflection this thread limits conservative to the Republican Party; I know many self defined conservatives see themselves as Independents or Libertarian, so let the question be: What do 21st Century conservaitves believe (and skip the snarky second phrase).

We believe libtards are A. retarded.. and B. are liars. and C. insist on spending someone else's money.. and D. are gimmie gimmie people. There now you've been educated.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yet what does that mean exactly? When many decisions by (supposedly) learned jurists are decided 5-4. How does one "follow the Constitution"?

“The originalism looks to the original public-meaning of the Constitution and its amendments at the time they were enacted. The meaning of the Constitution must remain the same, until it is properly changed. And it cannot be changed unilaterally by the courts, or even by courts acting in conjunction with other branches of government.” Professor Randy Barnett, in “Originalism,” p. 262.

I'm still reading this: http://randybarnett.com/nonoriginalists.htm

Great!

I always appreciate scholarship....but I'm not giving you another rep...you never say thanks.

I recommend the book I mentioned earlier, and the source of the quote above, "Originalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate," edited by Steven Calabresi...
...in which there are several interesting debates and opinions.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Liberals defend SocSec not because of a desire to help old people, but to protect their political power - it buys them votes from said old people, and it gets them money they can use to buy votes from others.

Social Security works. It is not a scam or a ponzi scheme, it simply works. Not everyone has a defined benefit retirement or a 401 k, not everyone earns enough to save for retirement and even those who do and did got fucked when the stock market nearly crashed. It is a safety net and prevents senior citizens from living in abject poverty.

How long do you think the ponzi scheme will continue to work?

Keep in mind all funds go to the general fund and our government insists we fund it less.

Al Gore wanted all SS funds placed in a locked box, kept out of the hands of Congress; GWB wanted to eliminate SS and have everyone invest in private accounts. Neither prevailed, had Bush many many Americans would be in deeper financial trouble today.

 

[Nic_Driver]

Ah yes, the evils of Social Security and Medicare. The very idea that all of society needs address the care of the individuals within that society. Let's just go back to the ethics of the cave, every man for himself, brother against brother, family against all other families, tribe against all other tribes, state against all other states. All against all. Works so damned well in places like Afghanistan, we really should totally emulate them.

It's rather small minded to presume that opposing SocSec and Medicare equates to an opposition to helping the needy.

Social Security is probably the biggest of all american government scams.

Old people would be a lot better of if they never had to pay into it and could just keep and invest their money on their own accord, but that's somehow immoral to liberals.

Do you know anyone who put money into it, who is at retirement age, that is not receiving benefits?

Anyone?

Are you sure it doesn't work?