What beliefs define a 21st Century American conservative?

[Nic_Driver]

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?

I'm not implying anything, I'm making a statement, here it is;

I can't help everyone by myself but many still need help.

The government is the best way to ensure old/poor don't starve and the best way to ensure help is available to all that need it.

It won't take all of your money to help, just a pittance.

I'm also declaring that I have no problem spending a bit of your money, along with mine, to help fellow Americans.

The only rebuttal to that so far is I'm a morality bigot and I accept that too. I don't really care as long as those that need help get it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

So... when the majority decides to impose a moral position that offends you - lets say, bans on abortion and gay marriage - you'll simply accept it as the will of the majority and go about your daily life?

 

[Nic_Driver]

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.

So... when the majority decides to impose a moral position that offends you - lets say, bans on abortion and gay marriage - you'll simply accept it as the will of the majority and go about your daily life?

Of course not. I will attempt to sway enough people to my position that it becomes the majority, just like you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

So... when the majority decides to impose a moral position that offends you - lets say, bans on abortion and gay marriage - you'll simply accept it as the will of the majority and go about your daily life?

Of course not.

That's what I thought - you'll kick and scream like a spoiled child denied his lolly.

In a free state, we don't impose our version of morality on others.
Thus, you have no desure to live in a free state.

Thanks for being honest about that.

 

[SayMyName]

21st Century conservatism should be true to the core, as set forth by the father, Barry Goldwater.

One fundamental, is that charity should remain with the churches. 1 trillion dollars in welfare spending since Great Society, and poverty has increased, not declined.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

Actually that "is" the America in which you were raised and it will be the America in which you will die because there will always be homeless here no matter what agenda is in place...conservative or liberal. To blame homelessness on "the conservative agenda" is a load of crap, Catcher. We've had fifty years of a steadily increasing Nanny State and the number of homeless has increased not decreased. If you were REALLY concerned with keeping people off the streets you'd be concerned about having policies in place that put people back to work. Apart from substance abuse and mental health issues the reason people end up living on those streets is that they've lost the paycheck that kept them solvent. Everytime you progressives try and pass Cap & Trade, or use the EPA to push tougher green house gas emissions regulations, or use the Department of Justice to shut down companies like Boeing building a plant in South Carolina, or shut down drilling or the building of a pipeline...it is YOU that puts people on the streets because it is YOU that's taken away jobs from people who desperately need them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That is not the America in which I was raised.

This, again, is either a lie or abject ignorance.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

What do they believe in and why are they so quick to attack other self described conservatives as RINO's?

Postscript: Upon reflection this thread limits conservative to the Republican Party; I know many self defined conservatives see themselves as Independents or Libertarian, so let the question be: What do 21st Century conservaitves believe (and skip the snarky second phrase).

Conservatives don't believe in dumping all your problems at the doorstep of the Federal Government, then look to the rich for a "bail-out" when (through uncontrollable spending) you are incapable of allowing the American people to fail on their own and learn from their OWN mistakes. Where in the Constitution does it say they everyone is to be provided for by the Federal government, or that we are guaranteed success through the government? Smaller government involvement into the lives of everyday Americans, and let the "people" determine their own success by the decisions they make in their own lives are the ideals behind a conservative. We are never given the guarantee to be happy, only that we each have been given the liberty in our own individual Pursuit of Happiness. Somehow the silver platter entitlement of "what's in it for me", "what about me", or "why can't I have that", has plagued this country like a cancer and has rewarded this nation with unsurmountable DEBT.

 

[Nic_Driver]

That is not the America in which I was raised.

This, again, is either a lie or abject ignorance.

How about this instead, "These are not the American ideals that were installed in me as a child and I yearn for a more compassionate America, more in line with those ideals".

Better?

 

[Nic_Driver]

Conservatives don't believe in dumping all your problems at the doorstep of the Federal Government, then look to the rich for a "bail-out" when (through uncontrollable spending) you are incapable of allowing the American people to fail on their own and learn from their OWN mistakes.

Yet we bail-out the wealthy.

See the obvious dichotomy there?

 

[SayMyName]

If you were REALLY concerned with keeping people off the streets you'd be concerned about having policies in place that put people back to work.

I agree.

As Ronald Reagan once said, "The greatest social program is a job."

 

[M14 Shooter]

That is not the America in which I was raised.

This, again, is either a lie or abject ignorance.

How about this instead, "These are not the American ideals that were installed in me as a child and I yearn for a more compassionate America, more in line with those ideals".
Better?

Beats me - that's not what he said, and -I- am not so silly to think that I can speak for him.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you were REALLY concerned with keeping people off the streets you'd be concerned about having policies in place that put people back to work.

I agree.
As Ronald Reagan once said, "The greatest social program is a job."

Liberals judge the level of compassion in a society by the number of social programs for the needy
Conservatives judge the level of compassion in a society by the number of people who don't need those programs.

 

[Nic_Driver]

So... when the majority decides to impose a moral position that offends you - lets say, bans on abortion and gay marriage - you'll simply accept it as the will of the majority and go about your daily life?

Of course not.

That's what I thought - you'll kick and scream like a spoiled child denied his lolly.

In a free state, we don't impose our version of morality on others.
Thus, you have no desure to live in a free state.

Thanks for being honest about that.

You're being dishonest when you cut my post like that, shame on you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Of course not.

That's what I thought - you'll kick and scream like a spoiled child denied his lolly.

In a free state, we don't impose our version of morality on others.
Thus, you have no desure to live in a free state.

Thanks for being honest about that.

You're being dishonest when you cut my post like that, shame on you.

Nope. Not in the slightest. You said that you;d refuise to accept others trying to impose your morality on others; the rest is simple, and irrelevant, equivocation.

So, the point remains: You have no desire to live in a free state.

Two questions. Do try to be honest:
-Who do you think you are to be OK with imposing your morality on others, but refusing to accept them doing them same to you?
-Given your propensity to impose your morality on others, and in that regard, how are you any different from the social/religious conservatives who wish to do the same?

 

[Nic_Driver]

That's what I thought - you'll kick and scream like a spoiled child denied his lolly.

In a free state, we don't impose our version of morality on others.
Thus, you have no desure to live in a free state.

Thanks for being honest about that.

You're being dishonest when you cut my post like that, shame on you.

Nope. Not in the slightest. You said that you;d refuise to accept others trying to impose your morality on others; the rest is simple, and irrelevant, equivocation.

Two questions. Do try to be honest:
-Who do you think you are to be OK with imposing your morality on others, but refusing to accept them doing them same to you?
-Given your propensity to impose your morality on others, and in that regard, how are you any different from the social/religious conservatives who wish to do the same?

Sorry, you lost me with your dishonesty and your further justification of it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're being dishonest when you cut my post like that, shame on you.

Nope. Not in the slightest. You said that you;d refuise to accept others trying to impose your morality on others; the rest is simple, and irrelevant, equivocation.

Two questions. Do try to be honest:
-Who do you think you are to be OK with imposing your morality on others, but refusing to accept them doing them same to you?
-Given your propensity to impose your morality on others, and in that regard, how are you any different from the social/religious conservatives who wish to do the same?

Sorry, you lost me with your dishonesty and your further justification for it.

I am not at all surprised that you do not have the courage to answer these questions.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

You quote Matthew in you signature, too bad you miss the point.

Do you really want to help the old/poor or is it lip service? Are you really ok with letting your neighbor die so you don't have to pay taxes?

If you are, I am truly sorry for you and really have nothing more to say. I am on the opposite end of the compassion spectrum than you and will happily spend your money along with mine to make sure others live.

I hope there are more of me than there are of you.

The only government way we can ensure old/poor people in American don't starve is to quit allowing the government to hold their hand like some child. Whenever you allow the Federal Government to provide FOR the old/poor, then they have no reason to ever think of providing for themselves. It's that simple. If someone chooses to not go to public school, a free institution the government provides for them, then why is it now the "Government's" responsibility to provide for their needs? Where is that kind of burden of responsiblity given to our Federal Government by our Founding Fathers when they wrote the United States Constitution?

If you want to bring christian "religion" into the discussion, what passage in the Bible can you point that showed Jesus EVER going to the Romans and forcing the government to change? Did he not look to the "individual" to provide for those needs around him? Yes or No?

Since when have we stopped allowing families to care for their own, but instead DUMP those problems onto the Federal Government and say: "Here you deal with it!" ? Why does the left feel so assured in having the Federal Government handle all their own problems, so they don't have to look at the responsibility of facing up to their OWN decisions? If you want to give to the poor and support programs like food shelters, than it should be left to the indivual to freely choose that decesion. The Federal Government has only become the enabler to the problem of poverty in America.

 

[Nic_Driver]

Nope. Not in the slightest. You said that you;d refuise to accept others trying to impose your morality on others; the rest is simple, and irrelevant, equivocation.

Two questions. Do try to be honest:
-Who do you think you are to be OK with imposing your morality on others, but refusing to accept them doing them same to you?
-Given your propensity to impose your morality on others, and in that regard, how are you any different from the social/religious conservatives who wish to do the same?

Sorry, you lost me with your dishonesty and your further justification for it.

I am not at all surprised that you do not have the courage to answer these questions.

I would do nothing more or less than you would. I would try to encourage enough people to my position so that it becomes the majority position, the same as you would do.

The difference is our message. Mine is one of compassion for my fellow American and yours is one of self interest.

That you would try to manipulate the conversation, failing to admit you are the same as I, you've failed the litmus test of honesty.

Do with that as you want, I don't care. If you want to honestly debate, fine but start now, ok?

 

[Nic_Driver]

The only government way we can ensure old/poor people in American don't starve is to quit allowing the government to hold their hand like some child.

Eventually this has to be the course of action but there are immediate needs, what of them?

Do you think it will someday be possible that there could be no one in need?