Are you a conservative?

[IlarMeilyr]

It is almost certainly pointless to try to educate impervious blockheads like some of our esteemed liberal bretheren.

Nonetheless, let us try yet again.

Properly understood (which liberals generally do not choose to recognize) the only connection between conservatism and the entire topic of "change" is that conservatives tend to oppose needless changes or changes which cause avoidable harm.

We embrace the Constitution, for example, and may not like social/experimental tinkering with it. Nevertheless, the Constitution itself PROVIDES for the ways in which it may be changed. We embrace those ways. That might lead to changes in the Constitution. Most of us are fine with that.

There is a laughable liberal construct which several of our Board liberals even choose to allude to: they claim that "conservatives oppose change." That is a false claim. It is a silly claim. It's kind of mindless. It's a cartoonish stereotype. Neither conservatives nor liberals embrace "change" simply for the sake of change.

Does anyone need concrete proofs and examples?

 

[Wry Catcher]

We fear change. Of course. That totally explains why we want to reform entitlements, because we are scared to. That totally explains why we want to change the tax code to make it treat people equally, because we are scared of change. That totally explains why we want to eliminate corruption and overreach of government powers, because we are afraid of change.

One of these days, you guys are going to be required to think. I seriously hope you dont hurt yourselves when you do.

Thinking is absent in most of your posts. Consider (if you can) the intended consequences and unintended consequences of the examples in you post. Include the variables, both dependent and independent of such a change.

So thinking is absent of most of my posts? Is that why you have to change the subject?

Because you seem to be still arguing that conservatives are against changed, despite the fact that conservatives are advocating for positive changes that work at empowering individuals and limiting the power of government.

As for consequences, intended or unintended, what do you think happens when you give a politician and bureaucrat more and more power to control your lives and the lives of your fellow citizens? How do you figure creating a new totalitarian power differs from the ones that existed in the dark ages?

You know what the big difference is? Turning the United States into a large totalitarian state will bring about some of the greatest bloodshed this world will ever see. Why? Because our technology is much more efficient at killing people than it was in the so called dark ages.

Yes, thinking is absent from most of you posts, maybe all of them. You certainly can't read with comprehension.

How do you empower people by making longer lines at the polls? How do you empower people by denying them an increase in the minimum wage? How do you empower people by giving tax breaks to the wealthy and demanding the working poor pay more? How do you empower people by denying them the right to marry? How did you empower women by denying them health care specific to their needs? How did you empower people by denying them the ability to serve their county in our military.

Yep, thinking is completely absent in your posts, that is self evident.

 

[JWBooth]

Change is inevitable but change just for the sake of change is absurd.

 

[The T]

Change is inevitable but change just for the sake of change is absurd.

The only change we are going through is for the Government to control us...tighten the leash. Make no mistake. They are out of control.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It is almost certainly pointless to try to educate impervious blockheads like some of our esteemed liberal bretheren.

Nonetheless, let us try yet again.

Properly understood (which liberals generally do not choose to recognize) the only connection between conservatism and the entire topic of "change" is that conservatives tend to oppose needless changes or changes which cause avoidable harm.

We embrace the Constitution, for example, and may not like social/experimental tinkering with it. Nevertheless, the Constitution itself PROVIDES for the ways in which it may be changed. We embrace those ways. That might lead to changes in the Constitution. Most of us are fine with that.

There is a laughable liberal construct which several of our Board liberals even choose to allude to: they claim that "conservatives oppose change." That is a false claim. It is a silly claim. It's kind of mindless. It's a cartoonish stereotype. Neither conservatives nor liberals embrace "change" simply for the sake of change.

Does anyone need concrete proofs and examples?

Everyone opposes needless change, especially those which are harmful, at least everyone who thinks. Change has consequences, some good, some bad and like empty calories change can be good for some and harmful to others. As human beings we are fallible, and unintended consequences are just that.

Conservatives embrace The COTUS? Really now, let's be real and not pretend the COTUS is not build with ambiguities or that many conservatives support an amendment to ban abortions, pass a balanced budget amendment and repeal of the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments, as well as amend Article II as it relates to the election of the POTUS and remake the electoral college to reflect proportional voting.

As for your penultimate paragraph, you who accuse others of logical fallacies have done a great job on the Straw Man you've built there. I for one do not believe Conservatives oppose change, surely going back to where we were before the election of FDR and later the Warren Court - all the way back to 1866 in fact - is to seek change and change which would IMO harm the many to the benefit of the few.

 

[kaz]

What is a leftist? And why I disagree?

-I don't want our young men to be torn down
-I don't want certain groups to get AA
-I believe a husband and a wife is the best family for children. Sure, I have nothing against gays but this is the way I feel.
-I believe that we should have a strong free market with some regulations protecting the worker.

Free markets protect workers ... by giving them choice ...

 

[Wry Catcher]

Those of us who choose to remember can recall the address by President G. W. Bush wherein he praised the single mom for holding three jobs:

Bush: Holding Three Jobs 'Uniquely American'

Drudge Report | February 9 2005

Last Friday when promoting social security reform with 'regular' citizens in Omaha, Nebraska, President Bush walked into an awkward unscripted moment in which he stated that carrying three jobs at a time is 'uniquely American.'

While talking with audience participants, the president met Mary Mornin, a woman in her late fifties who told the president she was a divorced mother of three, including a 'mentally challenged' son.

The President comforted Mornin on the security of social security stating that 'the promises made will be kept by the government.'

But without prompting Mornin began to elaborate on her life circumstances.

Begin transcript:

MS. MORNIN: That's good, because I work three jobs
and I feel like I contribute.
THE PRESIDENT: You work three jobs?

MS. MORNIN: Three jobs, yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that. (Applause.) Get any sleep? (Laughter.)

Yeah kaz, isn't the free market wonderful.

 

[RKMBrown]

Those of us who choose to remember can recall the address by President G. W. Bush wherein he praised the single mom for holding three jobs:

Bush: Holding Three Jobs 'Uniquely American'

Drudge Report | February 9 2005

Last Friday when promoting social security reform with 'regular' citizens in Omaha, Nebraska, President Bush walked into an awkward unscripted moment in which he stated that carrying three jobs at a time is 'uniquely American.'

While talking with audience participants, the president met Mary Mornin, a woman in her late fifties who told the president she was a divorced mother of three, including a 'mentally challenged' son.

The President comforted Mornin on the security of social security stating that 'the promises made will be kept by the government.'

But without prompting Mornin began to elaborate on her life circumstances.

Begin transcript:

MS. MORNIN: That's good, because I work three jobs
and I feel like I contribute.
THE PRESIDENT: You work three jobs?

MS. MORNIN: Three jobs, yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that. (Applause.) Get any sleep? (Laughter.)

Yeah kaz, isn't the free market wonderful.

You saying something is wrong with having 3 jobs?

My wife went 20years without having a job, then she got three jobs. One was training crafters on the weekend, another was baking dog treats during the week, and the third was making custom one off crafted items for orders. Oh yeah she didn't have to work. With the kids off to school, she just decided to start working again and choose stuff that she could do on her schedule.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Those of us who choose to remember can recall the address by President G. W. Bush wherein he praised the single mom for holding three jobs:

Bush: Holding Three Jobs 'Uniquely American'

Drudge Report | February 9 2005

Last Friday when promoting social security reform with 'regular' citizens in Omaha, Nebraska, President Bush walked into an awkward unscripted moment in which he stated that carrying three jobs at a time is 'uniquely American.'

While talking with audience participants, the president met Mary Mornin, a woman in her late fifties who told the president she was a divorced mother of three, including a 'mentally challenged' son.

The President comforted Mornin on the security of social security stating that 'the promises made will be kept by the government.'

But without prompting Mornin began to elaborate on her life circumstances.

Begin transcript:

MS. MORNIN: That's good, because I work three jobs
and I feel like I contribute.
THE PRESIDENT: You work three jobs?

MS. MORNIN: Three jobs, yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that. (Applause.) Get any sleep? (Laughter.)

Yeah kaz, isn't the free market wonderful.

You saying something is wrong with having 3 jobs?

My wife went 20years without having a job, then she got three jobs. One was training crafters on the weekend, another was baking dog treats during the week, and the third was making custom one off crafted items for orders. Oh yeah she didn't have to work. With the kids off to school, she just decided to start working again and choose stuff that she could do on her schedule.

Other than being a lousy SO, do you have a point you'd like to make? I suspect she did all of that and more just to get away from you. Most disturbing is you have children.

 

[The Rabbi]

Those of us who choose to remember can recall the address by President G. W. Bush wherein he praised the single mom for holding three jobs:

Bush: Holding Three Jobs 'Uniquely American'

Drudge Report | February 9 2005

Last Friday when promoting social security reform with 'regular' citizens in Omaha, Nebraska, President Bush walked into an awkward unscripted moment in which he stated that carrying three jobs at a time is 'uniquely American.'

While talking with audience participants, the president met Mary Mornin, a woman in her late fifties who told the president she was a divorced mother of three, including a 'mentally challenged' son.

The President comforted Mornin on the security of social security stating that 'the promises made will be kept by the government.'

But without prompting Mornin began to elaborate on her life circumstances.

Begin transcript:

MS. MORNIN: That's good, because I work three jobs
and I feel like I contribute.
THE PRESIDENT: You work three jobs?

MS. MORNIN: Three jobs, yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that. (Applause.) Get any sleep? (Laughter.)

Yeah kaz, isn't the free market wonderful.

You saying something is wrong with having 3 jobs?

My wife went 20years without having a job, then she got three jobs. One was training crafters on the weekend, another was baking dog treats during the week, and the third was making custom one off crafted items for orders. Oh yeah she didn't have to work. With the kids off to school, she just decided to start working again and choose stuff that she could do on her schedule.

Other than being a lousy SO, do you have a point you'd like to make? I suspect she did all of that and more just to get away from you. Most disturbing is you have children.

You dont have that problem because homos generally dont have kids.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You saying something is wrong with having 3 jobs?

My wife went 20years without having a job, then she got three jobs. One was training crafters on the weekend, another was baking dog treats during the week, and the third was making custom one off crafted items for orders. Oh yeah she didn't have to work. With the kids off to school, she just decided to start working again and choose stuff that she could do on her schedule.

Other than being a lousy SO, do you have a point you'd like to make? I suspect she did all of that and more just to get away from you. Most disturbing is you have children.

You dont have that problem because homos generally dont have kids.

LOL, your obsession with "homos" is very interesting, especially after you claimed to have satisfied your curiosity with Warrior.

 

[candycorn]

And that has absolutely nothing to do with who ruled the Dark Ages and the fact that they avoided progress at all cost. To be a progressive then was to slit your own throat. Learn some history.

I do know history. Which is why I know totalitarians are the same in whatever age you choose no matter what you called them to make them sound nice.

The Founders abandoned that mindset when established a Republic to protect the liberty of the people to make their own way. The fact that you want to "progress" past the Constitution and the liberties of men and empower government to steal others property for you and your friends doesn't make you any better than those who did the same thing during the dark ages with another name.

During the Dark Ages people like me got their heads chopped off, while people like you stopped all human progress in the name of your god.

How soon they forget.

Again, inside of 100 years ago, there was a discussion about contraception itself being outlawed...you couldn't use a condom!!!...today; thanks to progressives such as the Women's movement..the discussion settles on how many different types of contraception will be covered by insurance plans.

Obviously progressives are and will forever be on the winning side of history. That the conservatives can't stop the hands of time no matter how violent, demented, and flat out crazy they become is a non ending source of joy.

Hence all of the talk about splitting the country; they want to take what they think is their ball and go home.

 

[The Rabbi]

Other than being a lousy SO, do you have a point you'd like to make? I suspect she did all of that and more just to get away from you. Most disturbing is you have children.

You dont have that problem because homos generally dont have kids.

LOL, your obsession with "homos" is very interesting, especially after you claimed to have satisfied your curiosity with Warrior.

Not an obsession with homos. Just an accurate observation of you. You must have spent a lot of time on your knees in front of convicts rather than reading, like I did. It would explain the gross ignorance and stupidity of your posts.

 

[Darkwind]

What is a conservative?

Is there a prototype which includes: social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, neo conservatives, one-issue conservatives and callous conservatives?

Where do these separate sets intersect (on what issues do they all agree?)

How do you feel about change?

If you wish to classify conservative as ONLY against change, I can prove you are the most staunch conservative on this forum.

I don't "classify conservative as ONLY against change" since much of the conservative agenda is to change what we do today into what we did yesterday.

That is incorrect, but you have to be incorrect in order to chase your agenda.

I can show were each and every progressive on this forum is against change and I can do it with just two words.

 

[RKMBrown]

Those of us who choose to remember can recall the address by President G. W. Bush wherein he praised the single mom for holding three jobs:

Bush: Holding Three Jobs 'Uniquely American'

Drudge Report | February 9 2005

Last Friday when promoting social security reform with 'regular' citizens in Omaha, Nebraska, President Bush walked into an awkward unscripted moment in which he stated that carrying three jobs at a time is 'uniquely American.'

While talking with audience participants, the president met Mary Mornin, a woman in her late fifties who told the president she was a divorced mother of three, including a 'mentally challenged' son.

The President comforted Mornin on the security of social security stating that 'the promises made will be kept by the government.'

But without prompting Mornin began to elaborate on her life circumstances.

Begin transcript:

MS. MORNIN: That's good, because I work three jobs
and I feel like I contribute.
THE PRESIDENT: You work three jobs?

MS. MORNIN: Three jobs, yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that. (Applause.) Get any sleep? (Laughter.)

Yeah kaz, isn't the free market wonderful.

You saying something is wrong with having 3 jobs?

My wife went 20years without having a job, then she got three jobs. One was training crafters on the weekend, another was baking dog treats during the week, and the third was making custom one off crafted items for orders. Oh yeah she didn't have to work. With the kids off to school, she just decided to start working again and choose stuff that she could do on her schedule.

Other than being a lousy SO, do you have a point you'd like to make? I suspect she did all of that and more just to get away from you. Most disturbing is you have children.

My point was clear. You're just to mentally handicapped to understand it. Amazing that someone could read such a simple question and come out of it asking if there's a point to it. Do you need to understand the term job? Or was it the term "wrong" that confused you?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Change is inevitible ... Conservatism and Progessivism are approaches to the inevitable change.

.

Possible going in opposite directions. C's want to return to the 'good old days' and P's want to toss out what isn't working and test new ideas.

I think reactionaries want to go back to the good old days (which is change), Conservatives are very wary of change, progressives embrace trying new things.

That's my understanding of the definitions anyway.

 

[RKMBrown]

Change is inevitible ... Conservatism and Progessivism are approaches to the inevitable change.

.

Possible going in opposite directions. C's want to return to the 'good old days' and P's want to toss out what isn't working and test new ideas.

I think reactionaries want to go back to the good old days (which is change), Conservatives are vary wary of change, progressives embrace trying new things.

That's my understanding of the definitions anyway.

As usual, you are wrong. The only thing the progressives want to try is more hand-outs. You want to try something new? Get a job.

 

[derk]

Change is inevitable but change just for the sake of change is absurd.

The flux of now is a constant movement that’s back and then away eventually coming to be the time we will soon live, made rational through our past.
In waves things change moving us in the sway of the was an soon to be. Gentle motions of being in the here and now cause us to respond to forces and events in our lives. Ever changing from past to future we move in it, like a sea of grass. Constantly swaying, our motions total a rhythm metered against the,” sand of life running through the hour glass of time". Waves of change from one person affecting another till taken as a whole,” we are likened to tall blades standing together in the field of the human condition “. Forming torrents of unison and rolling with and against the specter in the splendor of life, we ultimately act together. Living separately and causing our changes to come in waves.

This would have been a good thread if the OP had Polled us instead of....?

[ame=http://youtu.be/QLI_he8HMFg]Bob Dylan - Knockin' On Heaven's Door. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Wry Catcher]

Change is inevitable but change just for the sake of change is absurd.

The flux of now is a constant movement that’s back and then away eventually coming to be the time we will soon live, made rational through our past.
In waves things change moving us in the sway of the was an soon to be. Gentle motions of being in the here and now cause us to respond to forces and events in our lives. Ever changing from past to future we move in it, like a sea of grass. Constantly swaying, our motions total a rhythm metered against the,” sand of life running through the hour glass of time". Waves of change from one person affecting another till taken as a whole,” we are likened to tall blades standing together in the field of the human condition “. Forming torrents of unison and rolling with and against the specter in the splendor of life, we ultimately act together. Living separately and causing our changes to come in waves.

This would have been a good thread if the OP had Polled us instead of....?

[ame=http://youtu.be/QLI_he8HMFg]Bob Dylan - Knockin' On Heaven's Door. - YouTube[/ame]

Bob Dylan was a poet, unlike the demagogues and charlatans who bloviate on AM Radio and the Idiot Box. And, as I noted above, concrete thinkers would have trouble with this thread as can be seen in the posts by some of them already. Change, is it good or bad, scary or dangerous isn't about a poll to determine popularity, it's about one's first emotional take on change, how they react not how they reason. That maybe too abstract for you, it is for many and in all 'irony' it is the echo chamber most confused. Who would have thought .

 

[derk]

Change is inevitable but change just for the sake of change is absurd.

The flux of now is a constant movement that’s back and then away eventually coming to be the time we will soon live, made rational through our past.
In waves things change moving us in the sway of the was an soon to be. Gentle motions of being in the here and now cause us to respond to forces and events in our lives. Ever changing from past to future we move in it, like a sea of grass. Constantly swaying, our motions total a rhythm metered against the,” sand of life running through the hour glass of time". Waves of change from one person affecting another till taken as a whole,” we are likened to tall blades standing together in the field of the human condition “. Forming torrents of unison and rolling with and against the specter in the splendor of life, we ultimately act together. Living separately and causing our changes to come in waves.

This would have been a good thread if the OP had Polled us instead of....?

[ame=http://youtu.be/QLI_he8HMFg]Bob Dylan - Knockin' On Heaven's Door. - YouTube[/ame]

Bob Dylan was a poet, unlike the demagogues and charlatans who bloviate on AM Radio and the Idiot Box. And, as I noted above, concrete thinkers would have trouble with this thread as can be seen in the posts by some of them already. Change, is it good or bad, scary or dangerous isn't about a poll to determine popularity, it's about one's first emotional take on change, how they react not how they reason. That maybe too abstract for you, it is for many and in all 'irony' it is the echo chamber most confused. Who would have thought .

You can believe in.
The house has announced a special committee to investigate the Benghazi tragedy & cover up.

Is that what your talking about?

[ame=http://youtu.be/2tmc8rJgxUI]Gun's N' Roses - Knockin On Heavens Door - YouTube[/ame]