What does a Conservative think?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by jekyll_PHD, Feb 14, 2009.

  1. jekyll_PHD

    jekyll_PHD Member

    I'm going to tell you!

    Am I 'conservative'? Yes I am!

    Oh no! What are you going to do?

    Don't panic. I'm not here to steal your baby or trick you into doing
    something you don't want to do. I'm simply here to give you my point of view.

    Before you get all uptight, please know that at one
    time I held a very liberal perspective. I even sported the stereotypical male
    pony-tail.

    What do I believe?

    1) People have the right to pursue individual opportunities.

    2) Each person shall be individually responsible for his or her own actions.

    3) Individiuals shall not infringe upon the rights of others.

    4) Government shall provide infrastructure to enable a functional society.

    Also, I'm not suggesting that the Republican Party represents conservatism.

    I'm sure I'm missing some things. Thoughts?
     
  2. drew5147

    drew5147 Dingledodie

    You sound like a Libertarian.


    Which is what i would classify myself as, if someone were holding a gun to my head, forcing me to choose a political party.
     
  3. mamaKCita

    mamaKCita fucking stupid.

    this.

    even with the libertarian party, i still get itchy discomfort and brain swelling.
     
  4. gardener

    gardener Realistic Humanist

    That's what I and my fellow liberal friends believe as well. Small world isn't it?
     
  5. earthmother

    earthmother senior weirdo

    I think the reason for this is that the concept or meaning has changed over the years. What was seen as a "conservative" when I was a teenager has now turned into something more like a "neocon", and and now "conservative" has turned into something like "liberal" which is exactly the opposite of what it used to be...

    I grew up in a very political family. When the discussion turned towards "conservatives" it was like talking about "evil bastards". NOW, if you talk about "conservatives" it's like you are talking about some kind of "savior".

    1984 anyone?
     
  6. mamaKCita

    mamaKCita fucking stupid.

    indeed. but typically the people that call themselves "conservative" and then espouse these views are about spending a good deal less money, not more. it's that classic sense of the word conservative.

    me? i just wanna get out of this thing alive and do as little damage as possible.
     
  7. gardener

    gardener Realistic Humanist

    Conservatives love individual responsibility, but they love to legislate the way we live our lives so that insurance companies can gain their biggest profits. They hate legislation that regulates their industries but they love to tell us our kids they can't ride their bikes without helmets...so we have to buy helmets, we have to buckle up, we have to submit to drug tests....does the individual benefit from that? They legislate what we think are relationships. Gays can't marry that might undermine their role in the universe. But don't ask Hedge funds to expose their investments.
     
  8. gardener

    gardener Realistic Humanist

    Spend less money? Whose? Sure they don't want to spend their own, but they are never shy about spending the money of the working man. What have these wars cost us both in money and human cost, they never seem to contribute to that or take it into consideration. Perhaps because they have benefitted from waging war.

    They like to say Roosevelt and the new deal didn't get us out of the depression but the war did. Do they have another war in mind? Will outright war somewhere else in the world cure their economic problems? Haliburton and all the private contractors haven't made enough under Bush/Cheney, we have to sacrifice more kids and more of our lives to their greed?
     
  9. mamaKCita

    mamaKCita fucking stupid.

    you're going back to the current definition of conservative, not the classic definition of conservative, which is what this guy is describing himself as.
     
  10. gardener

    gardener Realistic Humanist

    What is the classic definition?
     
  11. mamaKCita

    mamaKCita fucking stupid.

    small government, low taxes, low interference in personal lives or religion. but some people really dislike the label "liberal" so they state all their viewpoints then say "this is what a conservative is." even though they should pretty much let it go since "conservatives" in the past have taken the power and run with it and gone as big government as is possible to go, thus forever changing in the minds of just about everyone but conservatives as to what the word means. *shrugs* it's pure stubborness and semantics.
     
  12. Pressed_Rat

    Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

    These political labels have come to be almost meaningless, as definitions have been twisted so much over the years for an agenda. At one time the left adhered to principles of individual freedoms and minimal government. Now they adhere to the big government collectivism of socialism. They believe the government exists to manage every aspect of your life from cradle to grave. This is never what classical liberalism entailed, which today is commonly referred to as libertarianism.

    Many of today's so-called "conservatives" are no better. They love big government, as long as it's aimed at destroying the "evil doers," bombing foreign countries back to the stone age, and funding the Orwellian surveillance and police state. (The Democrats adhere to this also.) Historically, the Democrats were the war-mongers and the ones who sought after nation building. It's only recently that "conservative" has come to be associated with being pro-war. This association was born largely in the 60s and early 70s, with the foundation-funded "anti-war" and "peace" movements.

    The classic definition of conservatism has nothing to do with going to war -- that's neoconservatism, which is a leftist ideology based on the philosophies of Lev Davidovich Bronstein (aka Leon Trotsky) and Leo Strauss. There is NOTHING remotely "conservative" about 98% of today's so-called conservatives in office. Many of them will simply use social issues and religion to give the appearance of being godly and wholesome conservative men, when the majority of them could not be any further from this description.

    The last truly conservative (at least compared to what we have today) president we had is (SHOCK!) John F. Kennedy -- a Democrat. He was far from perfect, but he was at least the last somewhat REAL president we had. Kennedy wanted to end the brutal bloodbath over in Vietnam, as well as abolish the criminal enterprise we call the Federal Reserve. He also spoke openly against secret societies and secret oaths. He truly believed in power in the hands of the people -- not this phony bleeding heart socialism we have today, which only pretends to champion the rights of the people while taking all their rights away.
     
  13. Shaw-Min

    Shaw-Min Member

    Just for clarity, can someone straightforwardly define both classic conservatism and neo-conservatism?
     
  14. Pressed_Rat

    Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

    They really bear no similarities at all.

    Classical conservatism is based on limited, decentralized, constitutional government, with an emphasis on personal freedoms and responsibility, individuality, and free market economics.

    Neoconservatism is based on large, centralized government that cares very little about personal freedoms and individuality. It prefers collectivism to individualism. It rejects the US Constitution. It believes in socialism and the welfare state as a means of centralizing government power. It believes in the Hegelian philosophy that an individual's main purpose is to serve the state.

    The neoconservatives are essentially the same as the neoliberals, other than that the neocons are openly in support of pre-emptive wars. They are the Leninists of their time. They believe in war and revolution to foment radical change. On the other side of the coin you have the Fabian socialists, who are working towards the same outcome, but implemented in a different, more stealthy way, as not to draw too much attention to themselves.
     
  15. kinulpture

    kinulpture Member

    i think it can vary widely nowadays. i don`t necessarily like smoking pot very often, but am for legalization. i`m hetero, but because of bad encounters w/ gays of both genders, am just a little uncomfortable around them.& it`s entirely possible i wouldn`t mind sex w/ 2 women @ once, tho would hafta consider all angles, that`d be a hard choice, cuz i prefer long-term relationships & how many of those are there?. but will defend their rights. i`m very much on the fence about abortion too. first off, how many right to lifers, will take in a pregnant girl/woman? especially if she`s a handful? as in drug dependencies, or lifestyle? there4`s more, but library time`s a runnin out.
     
  16. SunLion

    SunLion Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    small government

    Conservatives tend to favor a large and powerful national government, regulating personal private behavior to the maximum degree that it can get away with (e.g. terminally ill cancer patients can be jailed for using an effective medicine). When they say they're for "smaller government," they are primarily referring to outsourcing government to private companies that invest in Republican politicians.

    low taxes,

    That much is partly true- conservatives really do believe that the ultra-wealthy should not have to share the "burden" imposed on them by civilization.

    low interference in personal lives or religion.

    As noted above, conservatives happily support jailing terminally ill people, and to add insult to direct physical injury, they try to force religion into schools in many forms (e.g. "Intelligent Design" nonsense).
    There are good conservatives. But as a rule, they're among the deceased.
     
  17. littleacorns

    littleacorns Member

    That's what a Republican is? Maybe you should tell the Republican party...they need a reminder.

    1) People have the right to pursue individual opportunities.

    Unless you're gay or poor or a sexually active woman.

    2) Each person shall be individually responsible for his or her own actions.

    Unless you're gay or poor or a sexually active woman.

    3) Individiuals [sic] shall not infringe upon the rights of others.

    Unless you're gay or poor or a sexually active woman.

    4) Government shall provide infrastructure to enable a functional society.

    Aka keep gays from having the same rights as straights aka keeping poor people down aka taking away a woman's right to choose.
     
  18. Pressed_Rat

    Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

    Last I checked, gays DO have the same rights as straight people. In the workplace they actually have an advantage over straight people and are often the first to be promoted (simply because they are gay). What planet are you living on?

    Also, maybe you should actually read what you're responding to. Your response to numbers 2 and 3 actually contradicts the flawed point you're trying to make.
     
  19. littleacorns

    littleacorns Member

    Oh, right, because gays totally have never been fired for being gay (I've known them) or been beaten or killed for being gay. Please. And "the same rights" -- bullshit. You can get married; gays can't. I'm responding to the OP and my response makes perfect sense.
     
  20. littleacorns

    littleacorns Member

    "3) Individiuals shall not infringe upon the rights of others."

    Uh, huh, that's why gays can't get married and in many places can't adopt. Their rights aren't being infringed upon? Fucking please.
     

Share This Page


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice