To me, a conservative is someone who wants to conserve the way this country used to be, before the "Progressive Era."
Define the "Progressive Era."
Conservatives want as small of a government as possible with a completely free capitalist market and very few taxes.
Well, I'm awfully sorry to burst your bubble, but the mainstream representatives
of the "Conservative" political ideology would be the Republican Party. That party has done the precise opposite of create "as small a government as possible." It was they, not the Obama administration, that passed the USA PATRIOT Act (this grants the government the power to use sneak-and-peek warrants and roving wiretaps) the Military Commissions Act (basically denies citizens the right to habeus corpus), and amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance act in closed, secret (untelevised) joint sessions of Congress
. So much for the ruse that Republicans want to defend your civil liberties -- they enabled the reviled Obama-Pelosi-Reid socialists to spy on you and detain you without due process
. Conservative talking about civil rights violation
They expanded the role of government in healthcare when they passed the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. Unlike ObamaCare (which the Republicans bitch about due to it's "expense"), MMA 2003 was an unfunded healthcare program with a monumentally
stupid clause that disallows the federal government from negotiating prices of drugs with drug companies(?!?). Please keep this in mind when you listen to a Republican (excepting the principled and consistent
Representative Ron Paul) bitch about how "government can't do anything right."
The total cost of this bill to U.S. taxpayers through 2015 will be $549 billion. The cost of this bill from 2009 to 2019 will be some $700 billion. That is NOT fiscally responsible.
That formula has worked for nearly 250 years and it made us once the greatest and wealthiest country on Earth.
Except from the government's inception (1789), when the Founders wrote in that darned Constitution that "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" (Article I, Section
. Oh, and then again in 1913, when Congress gave the federal government the power to tax incomes.
I might add, you seem to suffer from the typical conservative syndrome that yearns for a "simpler time, like back in the old days." Yes, back when people could own slaves, women couldn't vote, justice was blind to the plight of minorities - things have since changed, for the better, in part due to government.
The liberals, on the other hand, want to turn us into country with a massive socialist government, outrageous market regulations, and huge and unfair taxes. Basically, they want to turn us into (and I say this without intention of insulting anyone) just another European country.
It's awfully convenient for you, a conservative, to speak for "the liberals." I'm sure the negative picture you paint of them has nothing to do with your obvious ideological bias.
I wouldn't identify as a "liberal" per se, but I don't identify as a "conservative" either. There are some things I disagree with "the liberals" on, and a HELLUVA lot of things that I disagree with "the conservatives" on.
I would like for everyone in the country to have a minimum standard of living. That minimum standard would be a first-world shelter (not necessarily a house, but a secure, safely-built, clean living arrangement), access to clean water and food, access to sanitation systems, transportation, electrical service, and internet service. I believe we absolutely need to develop clean, renewable energy sources and pair those with a smart, efficient energy grid and
the "smart home." We have handheld computers that could intelligently manage every appliance in your home -- we could save a lot of power if computers, rather than humans, were relied upon to turn off our appliances that aren't in use, etc.
We also need a renewable product pipeline. We can't keep drilling for oil (a substance that requires millions
of years to generate) and pressing it into disposable plastic wrappers for all of our cools**t. We can't keep mining for rare earth minerals for use in our supreme technological creations because they're so rare, eventually supplies will run out and we will be unable to produce further technology. Products need to be much more recyclable, and they should last much, much longer. There's no reason people need to buy a new car every three years, or a computer every year. That's wasteful and we only have one planet and an underfunded space program that has yet to figure out how to extract resources from off-world sources.
My more conservative political ideology begins here: I am deeply concerned about the deficit, and both Republicans and Democrats have equally pertinent arguments concerning it. The Democrats insist that we should cut defense spending -- I wholeheartedly agree. The Republicans insist that we should cut entitlement spending (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security) -- I wholeheartedly agree. It's not so much that I think we should completely
eliminate social programs, it's just that I feel that when we can't afford any more, the spigot of taxpayer money needs to stop
Right now, we spend about $1 trillion on defense. We maintain a global empire 800 bases outside
of the United States, in some ~160 out of 190 total countries of the world. That is abject imperialism, I don't care how you slice it. That p**ses people off, rightly so. You'll note conservative talking heads like Glenn Beck make a BIIIIIIIG deal about "U.S sovereignty," America being a "sovereign nation" and where "citizens control it's destiny." This is true, and I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment -- but it goes both ways. Rather, it goes all 190 ways. In 2003, we invaded the sovereign
nation of Iraq. To date, studies place the civilian death toll at anywhere between 100,000 to 1,300,000 -- and it's probably on the higher side because five million of Iraq's children are orphans. How 5,000,000 children get to be orphans with a civilian death toll of 100,000 leaves much to question.
You don't think that'll p**s people off?
Let's go with the low estimate of civilian casualties in Iraq - 100,000 people. Every one of them had a mother and father, family, friends who were affected by that experience -- their death. They're human beings. They're not all that different from us. When someone dies, they'll never see that person again -- they know that and you know that. The difference is, a U.S. voter never has to live with that -- whereas the Iraqi who just lost her son, his daughter, her friend... well, they do. When one loses their son/daughter/friend due to the ruthless actions of a powerful enemy against whom you could not possibly fight back, that's when the anger builds. That's when they pick up an AK-47 and have no moral qualm in killing some U.S. voter's son/daughter/friend. Why should they? We've spent the past seven years killing far more Middle Eastern civilians than terrorists have killed American civilians.
Our policy and funding of "national defense" makes us less safe, and puts our hard earned, taxpayer dollars to collossal waste. I don't get anything from the United States owning hundreds of F-22's. My offspring don't benefit from the United States owning hundreds of F-22's. I would close every base outside of the United States and try hard, VERY hard, to get the entire military into a $1-200 billion budget.
We also spend about $1 trillion on the three big social programs, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea behind these social programs, but I can't say that I see sustainability in them. I favor a public healthcare option, but I'm not so sure about Social Security and such.
Conservatives want this country to follow the Constitution word-for-word, as was intended by the founders.
And precisely who gets to define what the Constitution means, word-for-word? Conservatives? Methinks you're just angry, because the system that the Founders established worked
. Or rather, it worked to bring you the government we have today.
So I'm gonna say something that'll probably ruffle your old-timey feathers: With every passing year, the U.S. Constitution is increasingly irrelevant and even harmful to our society. It was written 221 years ago in an era without automobiles and instant communications and space travel. I'm sorry, it's time for a refresh.
Liberals on the other hand see the constitution as an obstacle.
Your rhetoric is so full of conservative talking points, it's hilarious. Please, continue speaking for effectively an entire half of the country.
They try to pretend the 2nd Amendment doesn't exist...
No, they don't. They just aren't comfortable with what it allows, and so they'd like to see it re-interpreted in such a fashion that not everyone can have a gun. Of course, that's a pretty old stereotype of liberals -- can you name a single gun-control bill in the Democrat-controlled Congress right now?
...or that the Commerce Clause allows them to force us to buy something we don't want to.
Turns out that conservatives are guilty of using the Commerce Clause to force their morality on the rest of the country. But you don't mind that, now do you?
First of all, people who are against abortion see it as murder.
Which is precisely why I, as an atheist, don't give Christians much flak for their position on abortion. I disagree with that position, but I can completely understand
how someone believing in "life at conception" sees abortion as murder.
What I won't respect, however, is the Christian position on drug use. Or gay marriage. Respectfully, go f**king live your own life
. If I marry a man, it doesn't "destroy marriage" nor does it affect you in any quantifiable manner
, and the same goes for drug use and prostitution. Yeah, I get that the Bible says it's bad -- but 15% of America (and growing) agrees that the Bible is no more significant or important a book than Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (which was far
more entertaining, IMO).
Do you find gay/lesbian/bisexual/transsexual activity to be immoral? Fine. Don't be a gay/lesbian/bisexual/transsexual. You have authority over the conduct and actions of absolutely one person: Yourself. So, when I see Christian political action committees like the National Organization for Marriage, I want to punch babies. That is your religion, your people, trying to make the government force me to adhere to your own broken moral code. Nothing infuriates me more, f**king nothing.
I don't get it. Why don't you guys just leave.
Why don't you guys come up with good counter-arguments?
There are dozens of countries across the Atlantic that fit your idea of a perfect world but instead you insist on changing this once great nation to match your liberal agenda.
As I've elucidated above, I'm not for a "liberal agenda." I'm for an intelligent one, and that's something the Republicans haven't offered for like, 50 years, when the religious zealots co-opted a once eloquent party of statesmen. Now, it's the party of hypocrites (excepting Ron Paul -- he isn't NEARLY the hypocrite that very nearly every other Republican is).
You have to understand the conservatives are not f**king anything up.
No, definitely, the big-ass recession we had didn't happen on Bush's watch. And the two wars that are bankrupting our country, that definitely didn't happen on Bush's watch either. Oh, and the tax cuts that castrated government revenues and HEAVILY contributed to the current defecit didn't happen on Bush's watch either. The huge civil rights violations that I listed above also didn't happen under Bush's watch.
To suggest that the conservatives didn't f**k up the country is to deny reality. Where the hell were you the past eight years?