Conservative Positions

Foxfyre wrote:

LOL, well me being barely computer literate, most of that went right over my head. I haven't tried to run anything produced on a Mac for a long time, but just remember is was problematic before everybody I work with--different company divisions, support services, and all our clients--started using Windows.

Anyhow sounds like you have lived/are living an interesting life DTOM

oops... sorry foxy Embarrassed

. i spend so much time trying to stay on top of the ever changing aspects that i forget that not everyone is a nerd (we often become what we most despise ). although i have found that if i rattle off enough of this stuff, i can sort of lull my wife into a stupor and make it to the kitchen and back with a fresh beer without her noticing...

thanks. my life has been fairly interesting so far. really looking forward to my 2nd "second childhood"...

0 Replies

Re: Conservative Positions

McGentrix wrote:

GERROM wrote:
MAC has always been a better machine, but in this society the best doesn't always rise to the top.

Wow. That one sentence could lead to volumes of discussion. Instead, I will just disagree.

right you are mcg... it would have to go on the "religion" threads though, wouldn't it ? :wink:

0 Replies

Gerrom writes

Quote:

Although I want to keep focused on my quest,

Ah Gerrom, though the aside has been interesting, apologies for sidetracking the thread and indeed let's get it back on course. I am not sure I've read every page of postings so far, but I'm not sure anybody has addressed your summarized request:

Quote:

I'm looking for the conservative mission statement, the vision, the leadership rather than simply carping about the money, the ethics, the lying, cheating, stealing, demagoguery and such because all politicians have done so and will continue to do so.

I'm going to take a stab at it though, of course, I can only submit my beliefs and others who call themselves conservative will likely disagree on one, some, or all points. Also a quick disclaiimer here: many honest liberals will see some overlap in liberal views and conservative views here.

Conservatives have an appreciation for history and tradition and tend to look for the positives in those two things. While Conservatives can be and have been progressive in correcting injustice and inequities, they also tend to value those traditions, customs, mores, and values that solidfy and strengthen society and make communities better places to live and rear their children.

Quote:

"The establishment of our institutions," wrote President Monroe, "forms the most important epoch that history hath recorded. They extend unexampled felicity to the whole body of our fellow-citizens, and are the admiration of other nations. To preserve and hand them down in their utmost purity to the remotest ages will require the existence and practice of virtues and talents equal to those which were displayed in acquiring them. It is ardently hoped and confidently believed that these will not be wanting."

Conservatives believe in a Federal government only large enough to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities as is summarized in the preamble of the Constitution: to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. What can be accomplished more economically and/or efficiently and/or effectively at the local level or by private initiative should be left to the states and to the people to do. Conservatives look for leaders who hold those views.

Conservatives believe in empowering people and allowing them the freedom to search for, develop, and implement solutions for their own problems and those of others. The larger the government, the more coercive and intrusive it becomes. At one time conservatives believed it immoral to even give the people's money in charity without their consent. Now conservatives at the very least believe social services that weaken families and/or encourage dependency from those they serve in fact serve poorly.

Quote:

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." ----George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790

Conservatives are very big on individual responsibility and accountability, on being a people ruled by laws, on being a nation with secure borders and protected by a strong military, and on people accepting the consequences of the choices they make. Conservatives value excellence and put faith in a free people to rise to meet whatever challenge they may have to face. Conservatives believe those who honorably earn their reward are deserving of it.

Conservatives believe in taking care of the truly helpless and are the most generous of people in that regard. Conservatives believe true charity is voluntary and is born of heartfelt compassion, not governmental edict.

Conservatives are protective of inalienable rights counting among those all that does not harm or require involuntary contribution of any other person.

The roots of Conservatism are imbedded with the Federalists and other Constitutional founders, Adam Smith, John Locke, et al.

In a nutshell, Conservatives take the view that what has generally worked should be preserved, and what has generally failed should be scrapped or changed. In other words, ?'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' and otherwise, ?'just do it.'

Okay that's my take on it. Somebody else's turn. Smile

0 Replies

The purpose and function of conservative government is not to preside over change but to
prevent change. By political methods when unavoidable, by violence when convenient.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

The purpose and function of conservative government is not to preside over change but to
prevent change. By political methods when unavoidable, by violence when convenient.

guess that's why they are called conservative and not progessive. think about it. conservative leaders always refer to how good it used to be and how bad it sucks now.

if nothing else, my ol' redneck granpappy had this right; "the good old days ? humphhh. nothin' good about 'em."

0 Replies

However, DTOM, right or wrong, it is the 'conservatives' these days who are looking for ways to reform the schools, overhaul social security, coming up with ideas to address health care issues, thinking about renewed space travel, considering an overhaul of the tax system, pushing for solutions to the energy crisis, etc. etc. etc., and it is the so-called 'progressives' who have no ideas, have their heels dug in to prevent any deviation from the status quo, and who are saying 'no no no' at every turn. So you have to be careful when you're making generalities about who is progressive and who isn't.

There is something to say about preserving traditions and values that have stood us well in the past. I bet you do that too. But modern history in the making simply doesn't support a view that 'conservatives' aren't progressive, however illogical that sounds.

0 Replies

The one thing worse than a chickenshit liberal is knee-pad conservative. The type that can not say `****' even when his mouth is full of it.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

The one thing worse than a chickenshit liberal is knee-pad conservative. The type that can not say `****' even when his mouth is full of it.

Perhaps they like the taste :wink: Apparently in fact.

0 Replies

Quote:

However, DTOM, right or wrong, it is the 'conservatives' these days who are looking for ways to reform the schools, overhaul social security, coming up with ideas to address health care issues, thinking about renewed space travel, considering an overhaul of the tax system, pushing for solutions to the energy crisis, etc. etc. etc., and it is the so-called 'progressives' who have no ideas, have their heels dug in to prevent any deviation from the status quo, and who are saying 'no no no' at every turn. So you have to be careful when you're making generalities about who is progressive and who isn't.

This is absolute bull.

Liberals have had lots of ideas about these things in the last five years. I would only point you to the speeches given by the Dem candidates in the last election if you need to see people's ideas about the energy crisis, tax overhaul, and health care issues.

This is a common tactic of the right, to pretend that the left doesn't present any solutions and then crow about how their 'solutions' are the only path to take.

Prescription drug bill? Some solution
SS reform? Some solution
Tax reform? Take even less from the rich? Some solution!
Energy Reforms? How about NO subidies for renewable energies/vehicles and large ones on HUMMERS? SOME SOLUTION!

Your party isn't offering real-world solutions at all; they are, as usual, protecting the interests of the rich, and that's it.

There IS no Republican party any longer; there is only the party of the Corporation, the Wealthy, and they have hired the Religious to do their bidding. It's sad, really.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
However, DTOM, right or wrong, it is the 'conservatives' these days who are looking for ways to reform the schools, overhaul social security, coming up with ideas to address health care issues, thinking about renewed space travel, considering an overhaul of the tax system, pushing for solutions to the energy crisis, etc. etc. etc., and it is the so-called 'progressives' who have no ideas, have their heels dug in to prevent any deviation from the status quo, and who are saying 'no no no' at every turn. So you have to be careful when you're making generalities about who is progressive and who isn't.

This is absolute bull.

Liberals have had lots of ideas about these things in the last five years. I would only point you to the speeches given by the Dem candidates in the last election if you need to see people's ideas about the energy crisis, tax overhaul, and health care issues.

This is a common tactic of the right, to pretend that the left doesn't present any solutions and then crow about how their 'solutions' are the only path to take.

Prescription drug bill? Some solution
SS reform? Some solution
Tax reform? Take even less from the rich? Some solution!
Energy Reforms? How about NO subidies for renewable energies/vehicles and large ones on HUMMERS? SOME SOLUTION!

Your party isn't offering real-world solutions at all; they are, as usual, protecting the interests of the rich, and that's it.

There IS no Republican party any longer; there is only the party of the Corporation, the Wealthy, and they have hired the Religious to do their bidding. It's sad, really.
Cycloptichorn

Nothing new under the sun. Son of God or not, this is exactly why Christ was crucified, the religious leaders of the time getting in bed with the politicians of the day so each could maintain the status quo of their privileged positions.

And before I get accused of anti semitism I'm not talking about Jews, I'm talking about those particular few Jewish leaders of the time.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
However, DTOM, right or wrong, it is the 'conservatives' these days who are looking for ways to reform the schools, overhaul social security, coming up with ideas to address health care issues, thinking about renewed space travel, considering an overhaul of the tax system, pushing for solutions to the energy crisis, etc. etc. etc., and it is the so-called 'progressives' who have no ideas, have their heels dug in to prevent any deviation from the status quo, and who are saying 'no no no' at every turn. So you have to be careful when you're making generalities about who is progressive and who isn't.

This is absolute bull.

Liberals have had lots of ideas about these things in the last five years. I would only point you to the speeches given by the Dem candidates in the last election if you need to see people's ideas about the energy crisis, tax overhaul, and health care issues.

This is a common tactic of the right, to pretend that the left doesn't present any solutions and then crow about how their 'solutions' are the only path to take.

Prescription drug bill? Some solution
SS reform? Some solution
Tax reform? Take even less from the rich? Some solution!
Energy Reforms? How about NO subidies for renewable energies/vehicles and large ones on HUMMERS? SOME SOLUTION!

Your party isn't offering real-world solutions at all; they are, as usual, protecting the interests of the rich, and that's it.

There IS no Republican party any longer; there is only the party of the Corporation, the Wealthy, and they have hired the Religious to do their bidding. It's sad, really.

Cycloptichorn

speaking of bull... did you notice how you failed to cite even one example a liberal plan to change anything?

0 Replies

I would like to see Cyclop give an informed rationale for his rather extreme opinions too. But he only requires that of others. Smile

0 Replies

Quote:

speaking of bull... did you notice how you failed to cite even one example a liberal plan to change anything?

I did cite example, I just didn't go into detail.

Here's one for ya, though:

Quote:

Q: You pledged that you would not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 a year. How can you keep that pledge without running this country deeper into debt?

KERRY: I'll tell you exactly how I can do it: by reinstating what Pres. Bush took away, which is called "pay as you go." During the 1990s, we had pay-as-you-go rules. If you were going to pass something in the Congress, you had to show where you are going to pay for it and how. Pres. Bush is the only president in history to [rescind pay-as-you-go]. I'm going to reverse that. We're going to restore the fiscal discipline we had in the 1990s.

Source: Third Bush-Kerry Debate, in Tempe Arizona Oct 13, 2004

There's just one. Would you like me to start a thread entitled 'Liberal Positions?' There are many, many examples of countervailing thought to the Conservative ones which you purport dominate the discussion.

I believe that these days, with the Republicans in charge of ALL branches of Gov't, the fact of the matter is that it has been made quite clear that no Liberal or Democratic bills are going to be passed this session which in any way contradict the thought of the majority Republican House and Senate. This allows you to portray it as if Dems aren't doing or proposing anything at all; which is not true.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Did you miss the LONG string of promises Kerry made that he would do, all which would cost big money, and all which could not be accomplished without seriously raising taxes which he pledged not to do?

Let's not go with campaign rhetoric please, but let's go with stuff that is actually being proposed to or by Congress.

However this would be an excellent thread to list the initiatives as the thread starter is wanting to understand Conservative mindset. But only serious ideas and proposals that are actually out there for consideration count.

So I listed several of the Conservative initiatives already in committe. It would be constructive if you would list the Democrat initiatives that have actually been submitted to committee Cyclop.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
speaking of bull... did you notice how you failed to cite even one example a liberal plan to change anything?

I did cite example, I just didn't go into detail.

Here's one for ya, though:

Quote:
Q: You pledged that you would not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 a year. How can you keep that pledge without running this country deeper into debt?

KERRY: I'll tell you exactly how I can do it: by reinstating what Pres. Bush took away, which is called "pay as you go." During the 1990s, we had pay-as-you-go rules. If you were going to pass something in the Congress, you had to show where you are going to pay for it and how. Pres. Bush is the only president in history to [rescind pay-as-you-go]. I'm going to reverse that. We're going to restore the fiscal discipline we had in the 1990s.

Source: Third Bush-Kerry Debate, in Tempe Arizona Oct 13, 2004

There's just one. Would you like me to start a thread entitled 'Liberal Positions?' There are many, many examples of countervailing thought to the Conservative ones which you purport dominate the discussion.

I believe that these days, with the Republicans in charge of ALL branches of Gov't, the fact of the matter is that it has been made quite clear that no Liberal or Democratic bills are going to be passed this session which in any way contradict the thought of the majority Republican House and Senate. This allows you to portray it as if Dems aren't doing or proposing anything at all; which is not true.

Cycloptichorn

So the one example you are going to cite is one that changes what Bush has done and reverts back to an ols way of doing things?

Did you even read what Foxfyre posted before responding?

Foxfyre wrote:

it is the 'conservatives' these days who are looking for ways to reform the schools, overhaul social security, coming up with ideas to address health care issues, thinking about renewed space travel, considering an overhaul of the tax system, pushing for solutions to the energy crisis, etc. etc. etc., and it is the so-called 'progressives' who have no ideas, have their heels dug in to prevent any deviation from the status quo, and who are saying 'no no no' at every turn.

Look at the example you have give. Notice how all it does is want to revert to the status quo. What do you think Foxfyre was referring to?

0 Replies

Conservative Positions
Stop Surprised

Stop

This is not a spitting contest.

Foxfyre I thank you for your return to the quest. I appreciate it. To those of you who believe that Windoze is better I'm sorry for the MAC comment.

Foxfrye what you wrote is great and I also believe in those ideals, however they are not exclusive to conservatives.

Would it not serve to return to our discussion about social policy in general, where both agreed that there is a national obligation to help those less fortunate. We left the chapter where is was getting exciting, the place where we were discussing the delivery of those services deem social, and in particulary social security.

How can we as a nation, based upon conservative/liberal points of agreement, deliver to the soon to be retired, 77 million baby boomers, a stipend for the rest of their natural lives. It is not a discussion that requires we justify the stipend, we have already agreed upon that, we want to deliver it(or another way to say this is to pay for it).

It conflicts with the less government rules and the cradle to grave help both factions discuss.

One way both parties could agree, change the governments behavior towards SS.

One way to do this would be to take the money currently be collected and simple put it in the bank. Don't convert it to TBills, that's debt.

Foxfyre, if we follow your dictum and look at the US a a person, should be not be saving for a rainy day, i.e., self-reliance!

So if the money was not converted to debt then would could reduce at least half of the burden.

A simplistic example: The employee/employer pays FICA, once collected its converted to TBills, i.e., debt(its loaned to foreign countries), the money obtained is spent on general revenue items.

Then the money has to be paid back, it is paid back out of the general revenue funds, if we don't have it we raise taxes or worse borrow more money to pay the debt.

It seems to me that I have paid twice. If the money is in the bank none of the above happens. So both conservatives and liberals have a delivery system that works, it meets a test of self reliance(the system is sound) and it gives a small bit of security to those who worked before us.

I realize that my kindergarten example has many holes in it, so please if you want to be critical, please explain it better than I did or even better, invent a better delivery system.

Thanks.

0 Replies

The new 'status quo' is the one that the Republicans have instituted, REMOVING the Paygo rules.

Do you really want me to start listing off examples of how progressives want to change our gov't and actions?

How about the many arguments made by Liberals and Progressives to change the way we handle our foreign affairs?

How about the many arguments made by Liberals and Progressives about Energy Indepence?

How about the many arguments made by Liberals and Progressives about Election Reform?

How about the many arguments made by Liberals and Progressives about Environmental restrictions?

How about the many arguments made by Liberals and Progressives about Shrinking the National Debt?

How about the many arguments made by Liberals and Progressives about Business Restrcitions and Tax cuts?

There are far, far more than this out there. You simply have chosen to ignore the voice of progressive thought, is all. Want to see more?

www.mediamatters.org

www.dailykos.com

www.talkingpointsmemo.com

www.thinkprogress.org

I know you are allergic to such sites, but to claim that there is no voice for progressive thought coming from the left is ludicrous. You are trying to paint the Republican's actions as progressive, but they are the exact opposite.

They have removed accountability from Congress when it comes to budgets.

They have sought to roll back or ease environmental standards for companies who pollute.

They have given huge tax cuts to the Rich, time and time again.

They have given Big Business everything they want, from no Tarrifs, to free trade which kills our jobs, to huge oil profits for oil companies, to a bankruptcy bill which benefits noone but the credit card companies.

They are downright mediveal when it comes to rights for their fellow man (homosexuals, that is).

How is any of this progressive exactly? It isn't, is the answer.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Did you miss the LONG string of promises Kerry made that he would do, all which would cost big money, and all which could not be accomplished without seriously raising taxes which he pledged not to do?

well to be fair, foxy, somehow everything bush is doing costs "big money", regard the largest deficit in history, and yet people try to believe that it's all happening for free.

hollywood rule #1... "there is no free lunch"...

and i have to disagree with your assesment on kerry, at least in this case. he did lay out the plan as much as you can in that situation without rendering the crowd comatose.

1) i've seen the role call on the "pay go" bill (the thomas site). he did indeed vote for it. it's been a while, but i seem to remember that it split mostly along party lines.

2) maybe i'm naive, but 200 grand is a lot of money. surely a hell of a lot more than the vast majority of americans earn. that's why i can't understand how "joe regulardude" can sit there in his sears recliner after beating his ass into the ground all day for the 40k per year that is reported as the national average, and hear the kerry plan and think,"hey. this liberal kerry guy is gonna raise my taxes". not unless the boss finally coughs up that 160k raise that he's been promising you for the last 15 years.

i can't remember the guy's name, but i did catch an interview with a fella that was talking about how the average republican continues to vote for the party candidate even though it's not in his best interest to do so.

in fairness, there are instances where the same would apply to one voting for the democratic candidate as well.

but in kerry's case, i think we missed an opportunity to turn things to a better course for all americans.

0 Replies

Nobody is a harsher critic of the fiscal imprudence of the current Congress than I am DTOM, but in fairness to my position, Kerry did promise a huge expensive laundry list of initiatives he would do as president while pledging, on camera, looking earnestly into the lens, that he would not raise taxes one penny on the middle class. Given the Democrat's track record of fiscal imprudence over the last many decades, there is simply no way to tar one side and not the other with that one and it apparently is not a partisan thing. Just don't try to impress me of Kerry's sincerity or virtue on that issue.

And Gerrom, you're welcome. Yes, yes let's get this thread back on track. On your comment about these things not being only conservative issues, I prefaced my post you referenced with the following:

Quote:

I'm going to take a stab at it though, of course, I can only submit my beliefs and others who call themselves conservative will likely disagree on one, some, or all points. Also a quick disclaiimer here: many honest liberals will see some overlap in liberal views and conservative views here.

Re social security, I'm on record on a couple of other threads as strongly favoring some privatization of social security so long as it remains voluntary at least initially. You're right that Congress simply spends the social security taxes collected and turns them into national debt. Further the amounts collected never gain in value leaving a pittance for the beneficiaries of it.

Private accounts in return for reduced allocations from the common pot could be a real solution to both problems. Congress couldn't spend that money and it would have potential to substantially grow and ensure a happy and prosperous retirement for the beneficiary. This would be doubly so if a provision for voluntary additional contributions could be made and thus ensuring that a person's retirment fund was fully backed by the U.S. government instead of at risk in some unscrupulous corporate coffer. (Enron immediatley comes to mind.)

The operative word at this time is 'voluntary' and allowing people the option and freedom to direct more of their destiny. That is the President's proposal coming from his conservative side--all his sides aren't conservative. Smile

It's a good idea and deserving of a fair hearing in the national debate.

0 Replies

Re: Conservative Positions

GERROM wrote:

Windoze

that's the second good one i'm writing down today !

0 Replies

Conservative Positions

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know