What beliefs define a 21st Century American conservative?

[Nic_Driver]

Let's just bring this back around.

There are some people here in America that would starve without help from the government, regardless of the form of the help.

What we've determined so far is a conservative government would let them die while a liberal government would give them aid.

The debate descends into derision, condescension and insults from there but this is the issue in a nutshell.

 

[initforme]

"if you have evidence of the above I will pay you $10,000. Bet? or admit to being a liberal.


I dont have $10,000 to part with. Sorry. I worked for my money. Those billionaires who are afraid to pay a tiny bit more cant say that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Conservatives are exceedingly authoritarian, conformity is paramount; dissent is ridiculed and discouraged. Pragmatism is despised:

I would say not just the far end of conservatism but main stream as well are of the authoritarian personality type. That today’s conservatives cannot handle change of any kind. Which also explains why they see nothing wrong with the current authoritarian hierarchical system and cannot understand a leaderless system like OWS. It goes completely against their though processes.

… whereas those with the authoritarian cognitive style used to be more evenly split between the parties, decades of appeals for “states rights” and “law and order,” and against ERA, gay rights and immigration reform have concentrated this particular personality type in the GOP. And the consequence of that decades-long process has been the emergence of a Republican party that is, to a remarkable degree, built on viscera — on appeals to anger and resentment, and a deeply-felt conviction that America is breaking down irretrievably and that the way to stop that process is to demonize and marginalize outgroups deemed responsible for that breakdown. And this is no longer a geographically confined phenomenon, but a fully national one.

The Mind of A Conservative | MyFDL

The second paragraph quoted above describes our own USMB rightists perfectly.

National Socialists are conservatives? Who knew? The idiots who think that judges right the constitution are the only onse I can think of.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Let's just bring this back around.

There are some people here in America that would starve without help from the government, regardless of the form of the help.

What we've determined so far is a conservative government would let them die while a liberal government would give them aid.

The debate descends into derision, condescension and insults from there but this is the issue in a nutshell.

Is that the best reply you have to the fact that food banks have no food?

 

[bripat9643]

Welcome to today, food banks are saying that 1 in 4 Americans are hungry, a higher percentage than anytime since the depression, and that they literally cannot meet the demand. The government is doing a great job.

Hunger isn't something that can be measured scientifically, so food banks can make any self-serving claim they want about it. Malnutrition can be measured, and no one in this country shows any signs of that. In fact, the main health problem the poor have is being too fat.

 

[Nic_Driver]

Let's just bring this back around.

There are some people here in America that would starve without help from the government, regardless of the form of the help.

What we've determined so far is a conservative government would let them die while a liberal government would give them aid.

The debate descends into derision, condescension and insults from there but this is the issue in a nutshell.

Is that the best reply you have to the fact that food banks have no food?

Do you think this is a reply to your comment 'food banks have no food'?

Why on earth would you think that?

 

[Foxfyre]

And what evidence do you have that anybody would starve if the government didn't feed them? Why are you so sure that if the federal government got out of the charity business altogether than that the local community would not pick up the slack?

 

[Wry Catcher]

And what evidence do you have that anybody would starve if the government didn't feed them? Why are you so sure that if the federal government got out of the charity business altogether than that the local community would not pick up the slack?

I no longer review crime reports but when the economy goes south the level of petty and not so petty crimes increased. Auto Burgs, petty thefts, mail theft, and residential burglary's. Domestic violence calls increase as do assaults, including aggressive pan- handeling and homelessness, defrauding inn keepers and suicides.

Many fine charities have "soup lines" so many do not starve. But on the streets of every major city the homeless die in doorways and on benches every year, they fill the emergency rooms of county hospitals and the jails, courts and social service agencies - all of which nationwide have lost staff and funding. They ride public transportation and use the seat as a place to rest and sleep.

That is not the America in which I was raised. The conservative agenda will only create greater gaps in service and more women and children will be left to the mean streets.

 

[rdean]

You can find Republican's "beliefs" from Ron Paul's newsletters.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is it, in a nutshell.

It is wrong to let old/poor people starve.

Exactly, so we should be able to donate OUR money to efficienct charities rather than force our money to be taken from us and given to an inefficienct gov't and put faith in the morals of politicians and bureacrats.

I could donate 100% of my earnings and still old/poor people would starve...and it would still be wrong.
The government is the only way we can ensure old/poor people in America don't starve.

Who are you to impose your morality on others?

 

[M14 Shooter]

What defines a 21st Century conservaitve?
1. Avarice.
2. Bigotry
3. Hypocrisy
4. Ignorance (willful and otherwise)
5. Anger
6. Fear
7. a callous disregard for others.
8. Hate

:roll:

Prove your opinions.

--Still-- waiting for you to tell us who you are to impose your moralty on others.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What defines a 21st Century conservaitve?

1. Avarice.

2. Bigotry

3. Hypocrisy

4. Ignorance (willful and otherwise)

5. Anger

6. Fear

7. a callous disregard for others.

8. Hate

This, along with your snarky OP, is why I, and many others, did not attempt to answer your question, we knew it was nothing but an attempt to score points by declaring your moral superiority and self righteousness.

As clearly evidenced by the absence of any serious attempt by him to discuss the responses given.

 

[SayMyName]

Conservatives are not limited to the Republican party. The Republican party has very much let it be known that conservatives in the traditional sense, as defined by the father of conservative thought, Barry Goldwater, are not welcome.

Conservativism is not a sheet in the wind, no matter how much the Republican party, its neo-con pundits and religious zealots try to make it so.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Let's just bring this back around.

There are some people here in America that would starve without help from the government, regardless of the form of the help.

What we've determined so far is a conservative government would let them die while a liberal government would give them aid.

What we've determined is that liberals are more than happy to impose their version of morality on everyone, even though they are the fist to kick and scream like spolied children when someone tries to impose their morality on them.

 

[Nic_Driver]

Exactly, so we should be able to donate OUR money to efficienct charities rather than force our money to be taken from us and given to an inefficienct gov't and put faith in the morals of politicians and bureacrats.

I could donate 100% of my earnings and still old/poor people would starve...and it would still be wrong.
The government is the only way we can ensure old/poor people in America don't starve.

Who are you to impose your morality on others?

Hopefully, compassion is not out of style and I'm a member of the majority. In a democracy (a Democratic Republic anyway), the majority makes the rules.

Does that help? You're looking to enforce your morals and morays, who are you?

 

[Nic_Driver]

Let's just bring this back around.

There are some people here in America that would starve without help from the government, regardless of the form of the help.

What we've determined so far is a conservative government would let them die while a liberal government would give them aid.

What we've determined is that liberals are more than happy to impose their version of morality on everyone, even though they are the fist to kick and scream like spolied children when someone tries to impose their morality on them.

Still trying to reconcile your desire to keep your money while letting other people suffer?

It is good that you see this as a moral high point and something that should be achieved. Too bad you go to such lengths to remove yourself from the solution.

 

[bripat9643]

Hopefully, compassion is not out of style and I'm a member of the majority. In a democracy (a Democratic Republic anyway), the majority makes the rules.

Does that help? You're looking to enforce your morals and morays, who are you?

We already know that under democracy the mob rules. That's difference between a democracy and a free country.

 

[bripat9643]

Still trying to reconcile your desire to keep your money while letting other people suffer?

It is good that you see this as a moral high point and something that should be achieved. Too bad you go to such lengths to remove yourself from the solution.

Are you implying no one has a right to keep his income so long as a single person in this world has to do without something?

 

[Nic_Driver]

Still trying to reconcile your desire to keep your money while letting other people suffer?

It is good that you see this as a moral high point and something that should be achieved. Too bad you go to such lengths to remove yourself from the solution.

Are you implying no one has a right to keep his income so long as a single person in this world has to do without something?

Nope.

 

[bripat9643]

Still trying to reconcile your desire to keep your money while letting other people suffer?

It is good that you see this as a moral high point and something that should be achieved. Too bad you go to such lengths to remove yourself from the solution.

Are you implying no one has a right to keep his income so long as a single person in this world has to do without something?

Nope.

Then what are you implying?