Some one tell me what it means to be conservative.

[FirstMeasure]

Being Conservative Means "Never Having To Say Your Sorry"

[hbomb76]

I think people are too quick to polarize themselves, and extremes of ANYTHING are asinine. I consider myself a moderate DEMOCRAT, who values healthcare, education and employment over invading pissant 3rd-world nations and enabling oil-moguls. I believe that if you support the death penalty yet don't think abortion is a decision between a WOMAN and her own spiritual beliefs, you are a rotting, festering hypocrite ("killing" is "killing" after all), and I don't think that you should mix church and state AT ALL, because too much of "church" is interpretive, and laws should NEVER be such. I don't care who someone loves or sleeps with, and I support gay marriage because I think they should have the same rights as straight folks...why shouldn't THEY get to be as miserable as all you straight married people?!?!? All the holy rollers can back off on the religious-nut routines, because if marriage was so "sacred", the straight-population's divorce rate wouldn't be so high and so many people wouldn't be breaking their sacred covenant with God on a daily basis. lol

 

On the same token, you can't call me a flaming liberal s-bag either, because I do believe I should be able to own, carry and use (if need be) my guns. Just keep **** Cheney away from them, and make people take some sort of comprehension exam or something to prove they're competent enough to safely and sanely use them. If you're not a ****** or a nutjob then you can have a gun, basically, and that's fair for everyone (I'd sure as hell feel a lot safer if that were the case). I DO think that unless you have a uterus then your opinion on abortion is just hot-air & you should basically find something relevant to talk about, but I strongly support the death penalty in most cases (and even think child molestors, druglords and rapists should be put to death as well as the killers, no exceptions), and I'm offended at how crowded our prisons are because we keep scum alive too long and I have contempt for some of the trial lawyers who would even think to represent some of those people. Also, while I work in nonprofits who help the needy, I recognize that over half the people who want assistance don't need it, they just see it as an excuse NOT to have to be accountable or responsible, and I think they should have a wake-up call and stop feeling entitled to these PRIVILEGES (not "rights"). I think some of our government agents (the whole last regime) and the majority of our CEOs and other corporate whores also get away with far too much, and I think they too need a real shock to the system, but I am astounded at what people assume their "rights" are and why they shouldn't have to get up in the morning and go to a job like I do.

 

Those are just a couple of things, but you get the idea...I have things to do and don't want to go on and on about how I consider myself a great balance of "moral conservative" and "openminded liberal". Screw the labels, y'all, that's what makes us fight, what makes us resentful, and it ends up sounding ignorant and bigoted either way you slice it. I wish people would just grow up and realize there's right and wrong on both sides, whether you agree or not. Opinions are like a$$holes, they say, and keep in mind the more opinionated you are often the bigger...um...you get the picture. Nothing wrong with constructive criticism, but rumor-mill BS and fueling the polarization is as unpatriotic as we can be. Slamming one group exclusively does become bigoted, elitist and fascist...there are a lot of evils on both sides. Realizing you can't even trust your own people is the first step, and figuring out when to agree to disagree is a major improvement we could all stand to aim for. Don't empower one-sided, hypocritical ******bags like these guys, they make both sides look ignorant and blind:

 

 

and

 

 

I'm proud to be un-label-able (lol), and I think more people should strive to leave the mindless herd mentality behind like our country's revolutionaries and lawmakers did a couple centuries and some change ago. Freedom's worth fighting for, just make sure you're sure who the real enemies are!

 

Off the soap box now, flame if you want, I'm wearing my fireproof g-string today. =P~/

 

H-Bomb

[Gitfidl]

It is easier if I put these in the form of a question. The previous post suggested the answer ... but you come to your own conclusions

 

If the government may own banks bankers will bankers be appointed political hacks? Are that type of appointed generally successful banker?

 

If the government owns most of GM and Chrysler – (a camel is a horse designed by a government committee) how competitive will their products become?

 

If the government OWES trillions and trillions where will they get the money to pay it off? (a) print it? (B) GM? © NAFTA (d) off shore vendors (d) unemployed (discouraged) workers? (e) other (describe)

 

Buffet says 2009 will be a disaster … is he credible? Why is he wrong? or right?

 

WHAT does “liberal” or “conservative” mean IF production companies (like GM and Chrysler) are owned by the government and the unions own the government?

 

WHAT will replace a Republican party that crashed an burned? It did itself in and it is presently unable to re-define itself.

 

How will the replacement party compete for power? (parties that cannot get elected are social clubs)

 

Is Communist part USA a separate party or an element of the democratic party (like ACORN and AFL/CIO?)

 

If California has a population of 50 million and New York has a population of 60 million and the population of the U.S. is 300 million THEN where are the other 200 million people? N.Dakota? Kansas?

 

So which states will establish policy if congressional redistricting give the most Congress-people to the most populous states? California and New York? Or Kansas and N. Dakota?

 

If half of the population of California and New York are illegals, and they are not counted in the census, then what is the actual population of California and new York?

 

So which states have more economic clout in Washington? At banks? In the economy? In auto and medical insurance?

 

The 20th Century has ended. The 21st century is ten years old. Where is the transactional economy if the 21st Century is ALREADY based on cell phones and the internet?

 

Is that kind of thinking “liberal” or “conservative?”

 

Can the U.S. influence policy in the same ways it did in the 20th Century if China and India and the Islamics trade elsewhere? If Americans have no credit system? If American credit is not secured by valued assets?

 

If the U.S. gives dollar assets in exchange for gasoline and heating oil, and the gasoline and heating oil come to the U.S. from somewhere else … where does the dollar asset go?

 

If the dollar asset is a derivative of value, then what else goes somewhere in exchange for gasoline and other energy?

 

If the U.S. cannot operate a manufacturing plant that competes with those in other countries, and cannot (by policy)(law) convert natural resources (like coal and oil) into trade assets, then what assets are relinquished for energy assets? cars? clothes? engineering?

 

If the 1970’s Hippies (and other “Baby Boomers” ) are 62 years old now then in how many years are they eligible for Social Security? For Medicare? If most of them are unemployed ex-workers then what is the easiest way for them to get (a) money and (B) health care?

 

If Medicare and Social Security were already exhausted before the Baby Boomers became 62 AND the stock market crashed THEN how much more able are those program to accommodate Baby Boomers? Less able? The same?

 

If calculations predicted the end of Social Security and Medicare by 2020 prior to the stock market crash, then how much longer can it exist given the stock market/banking crash? How has the drop dead date changed? (Later or earlier?) Why?

 

If Medicare will collapse because it is un-affordable at some point before 20?? Then how likely is it that a larger universal health care system can be used to replace it?

 

If there is 1 worker for every 100 retirees/welfarees THEN how much will the government need to tax the worker’s income to pay the welfare and retirement needs of the 100?

 

At what point are the taxes so high that it is not worth having the job? 60% 80% 90% 95%?

 

Can GM and Chrysler compete with any other car makers if their employees are paying 80% taxes and therefore need three times MORE than they are now making?

 

Given your answers to the above what scenarios are POSSIBLE by 2012? 2016? 2020? For employment? For credit? For a strong economy (like we had in the 20th century). For universal health care? For Medicare and Social Security?

 

Given your answers to the above how do the possible scenarios you have defined support the "American Dream" lifestyle (own home, good job, two cars, excess income, adequate health care and retirement resources?)

 

You do the math and figure it out. You answer is s good as mine.

[Homz]

camel = eye of needle > wealthy man = kingdom of god

 

C=E>W=K

[milod]

Another quick comment on "labels."

 

I think it's funny that I'm normally considered a "conservative" because I'm relatively libertarian, and in ways I'm far more a social "liberal" than a friend who was among the George McGovern Chicago Democrat Convention protesters.

 

Also, I think the labels as they were pretty much solidified in the 70s and 80s don't quite fit current circumstances. I'd consider today's majority of Democrats "socialists" and today's majority crop of Republicans roughly "social democrats" of various stripes.

 

That's a far cry from the way the labels were used 30 years ago.

 

I'm soooooo conservative, by the way, I don't believe in "marriage" for "gay" couples on strictly grounds of language.

 

Over 40+ years of seeing words changed for political purposes truly angers me, and it's one of the few things that does. Absolute parity in "couples'" rights except the word? Fine by me. I really don't care who does what to whom as long as it's in private. It's just that in roughly 4,500 to 5,000 years of history I don't see that the word "marriage" in any language ever involves two persons of the same sex. Not even in ancient Greece or Rome when same-sex physical relationships were almost a "given" for "famous" people. It's a matter of definition. You don't call the sun the moon because you decide it's the "right" thing to do on ethical grounds. So... find another term for same sex partnerships, please, even as we can call the sun "our star," but not "the Moon."

 

(Another friend asked whether, to get the "civil rights" of married couples, he could marry either his brother or sister. Or both. Oops. Answer that one, eh?)

 

But then, I'm sooooooo liberal - or is that "libertarian?" I'd also see very little immoral with consenting polygamy. <grin> Just don't tell my wife. Seriously, I couldn't afford it psychologically or economically, but...

 

I detest illegal drugs for two reasons: One, I've seen too many personality and other "brain" changes for the worse, and two, because when people buy supposedly illegal substances for various modes of ingestion they don't really know what they heck they're getting. And even if they do as in misuse legal pharmaceutical, they overdo stuff.

 

Meanwhile... anybody play guitar lately?