What beliefs define a 21st Century American conservative?

[Nic_Driver]

You're the one who posted based on feelings, my posts are based on facts.

I have nothing but pity and sympathy

Earlier in this thread, actually quite recently, you pretended to care about people cutting out parts of quotes as a misrepresentation.

Were you lying then, or are you just being a hypocrite?

You posted based on feelings, and you've done in throughout this thread that you're morally superior to those who disagree with you because you support inefficient big gov't programs rather than putting more money in the hands of americans and relying on this generosity and charity.

You can't simply disagree, you have to pretend your somehow holier than thou solely for a political position you hold.

Sadly, I see that a lot in american politics where partisanships take precedent over anything and everything.

Sorry about that, emotions are all mine, you are a blank slate.

Got it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'll try this once more. If I am unhappy or disagree with a law or regulation I will voice my opposition in an attempt to sway enough people to the majority and end what I see as an injustice or other failure.

You have made it very clear that you are not OK when someone imposes their moraliy on you. Not sure what your post, above, does other than restate what is already clear.

So, lets recap....
If you disagree with these, please be sure to explain exaclty how I am wrong:

1- You are OK with imposing your morality on others
2- You are NOT OK with others imposing their morality on you
3- An honest person would see the two above statements as clear example of hypocisy

So... do you have the honesty to admit your hypocrisy, or not?

Let's recap..
(irelevant equivocation snipped to save bandwidth)

So... you do NOT have the honesty to admit your hypocrisy.
Color me surprised.

Ironic that you took excpetion to the statement that liberals were usually either ignorant or dishonest.



Given that you are clearly unwilling to be honest, I shall not waste any more time with you.

 

[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?

Are you refering to Solyundra, Navada Geothermal, Raser Technologies, and U.S. Geothermal? They all look to the Obama for a blank check, and yet they all had financial problems. Funny how the the term "bail-out the wealthy" can have a sudden change in meaning there. I don't support any government interference in the financial struggles of corporations like Solyndra, Dodge, or General Motors.

Having the wealthy not "bail-out" the Federal Government through increased taxes and cutting Federal Spending, outside of just military cuts, is showing fiscal responsibility. The problem with our Federal Government is in the form of spending NOT in the need to raise more taxes.

So you don't see the dichotomy, ok.


The other 99% of us do.

 

[Nic_Driver]

You have made it very clear that you are not OK when someone imposes their moraliy on you. Not sure what your post, above, does other than restate what is already clear.

So, lets recap....
If you disagree with these, please be sure to explain exaclty how I am wrong:

1- You are OK with imposing your morality on others
2- You are NOT OK with others imposing their morality on you
3- An honest person would see the two above statements as clear example of hypocisy

So... do you have the honesty to admit your hypocrisy, or not?

Let's recap..
(irelevant equivocation snipped to save bandwidth)

So... you do NOT have the honesty to admit your hypocrisy.
Color me surprised.

Ironic that you took excpetion to the statement that liberals were usually either ignorant or dishonest.



Given that you are clearly unwilling to be honest, I shall not waste any more time with you.

Of course not.

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

 

[Nic_Driver]

You can't simply disagree, you have to pretend your somehow holier than thou solely for a political position you hold.

It's the position that is holier, not me.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What beliefs define a 21st century American conservative?

That's easy...

The beliefs of a 19th century American conservative.

(in general...)

 

[M14 Shooter]

What beliefs define a 21st century American conservative?
That's easy...
The beliefs of a 19th century American conservative.
(in general...

Thank you, too, for lowering the level of discussion by several orders of magnitude.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Yet we bail-out the wealthy.

See the obvious dichotomy there?

Are you refering to Solyundra, Navada Geothermal, Raser Technologies, and U.S. Geothermal? They all look to the Obama for a blank check, and yet they all had financial problems. Funny how the the term "bail-out the wealthy" can have a sudden change in meaning there. I don't support any government interference in the financial struggles of corporations like Solyndra, Dodge, or General Motors.

Having the wealthy not "bail-out" the Federal Government through increased taxes and cutting Federal Spending, outside of just military cuts, is showing fiscal responsibility. The problem with our Federal Government is in the form of spending NOT in the need to raise more taxes.

So you don't see the dichotomy, ok.


The other 99% of us do.

Another give me, give me, give me complainer . . . "silver platter" mentality? Since when is it the Federal Governments job to provide for everyone's needs? Care to show me in the Constitution where it's the governments role to provide the "needs" of every American in an attempt to see that they are happy? Rather, it's called taking some 'personal responsibility'. Perhaps you heard of the term? You don't like earning $15 an hour, then be a business owner and invest in yourself. Don't always look to the easy way out of "getting more" simply because you refuse to take upon yourself the necessary risks, but prefer to do what requires less work for you - simply take from someone else.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What beliefs define a 21st century American conservative?
That's easy...
The beliefs of a 19th century American conservative.
(in general...

Thank you, too, for lowering the level of discussion by several orders of magnitude.

What did 19th century conservatives support or oppose that 21st conservatives don't support or oppose?

Other than the 19th century conservative generally not being interested in foreign entanglements and being the world's policeman (although some would argue that is what a true conservative today opposes)?

 

[Dr.Drock]

You can't simply disagree, you have to pretend your somehow holier than thou solely for a political position you hold.

It's the position that is holier, not me.

Connecting morality with a gov't that's killed hundreds of thousands of people in the last decade, yikes.

 

[Dr.Drock]

What beliefs define a 21st century American conservative?
That's easy...
The beliefs of a 19th century American conservative.
(in general...

Thank you, too, for lowering the level of discussion by several orders of magnitude.

What did 19th century conservatives support or oppose that 21st conservatives don't support or oppose?

Other than the 19th century conservative generally not being interested in foreign entanglements and being the world's policeman (although some would argue that is what a true conservative today opposes)?

Which is confusing as to why democrats support Obama being the world's chief of police and getting into as many foreign entanglements as humanly possible.



I'll give you personally credit as you disagree with Obama's warmongering side, but that's not what I see from most democrats. They now have the same kill them and let god sort them out view that republicans had under Bush.

 

[Nic_Driver]

Are you refering to Solyundra, Navada Geothermal, Raser Technologies, and U.S. Geothermal? They all look to the Obama for a blank check, and yet they all had financial problems. Funny how the the term "bail-out the wealthy" can have a sudden change in meaning there. I don't support any government interference in the financial struggles of corporations like Solyndra, Dodge, or General Motors.

Having the wealthy not "bail-out" the Federal Government through increased taxes and cutting Federal Spending, outside of just military cuts, is showing fiscal responsibility. The problem with our Federal Government is in the form of spending NOT in the need to raise more taxes.

So you don't see the dichotomy, ok.


The other 99% of us do.

Another give me, give me, give me complainer . . . "silver platter" mentality? Since when is it the Federal Governments job to provide for everyone's needs? Care to show me in the Constitution where it's the governments role to provide the "needs" of every American in an attempt to see that they are happy? Rather, it's called taking some 'personal responsibility'. Perhaps you heard of the term? You don't like earning $15 an hour, then be a business owner and invest in yourself. Don't always look to the easy way out of "getting more" simply because you refuse to take upon yourself the necessary risks, but prefer to do what requires less work for you - simply take from someone else.

You use the word "you" a lot when you go on your tea bagger talking point rant.

Do you mean me specifically or is that just a metaphor for everyone/anyone that doesn't agree with you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Christian charity is predicated on the idea of free will - you have to willingly give for it to mean anything. Liberals who use the idea Christian charity as the basis for the imposition of their morality onto others in this regard either do not understand the concept, or do understand it and choose to be dishonet about it.

Given that liberals are virtually always ignorant and/or dishonest, it's really a toss-up as to which applies.

Jesus is an a la carte menu for most conservative Christians.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You can't simply disagree, you have to pretend your somehow holier than thou solely for a political position you hold.

It's the position that is holier, not me.

Connecting morality with a gov't that's killed hundreds of thousands of people in the last decade, yikes.

Yet we are to have a "Separation of Church and State" with respect to government, see the irony?

 

[Nic_Driver]

You can't simply disagree, you have to pretend your somehow holier than thou solely for a political position you hold.

It's the position that is holier, not me.

Connecting morality with a gov't that's killed hundreds of thousands of people in the last decade, yikes.

That's not what I'm connecting. Are you purposeful in your misinterpretations or just truly ignorant of my point?

I want to help old/poor and cannot do it all by myself.

Helping old/poor is the moral high road but it doesn't make me any better or worse than you.

It's not that difficult a concept, why are you having such a hard time with it?

 

[M14 Shooter]

What beliefs define a 21st century American conservative?
That's easy...
The beliefs of a 19th century American conservative.
(in general...

Thank you, too, for lowering the level of discussion by several orders of magnitude.

What did 19th century conservatives support or oppose that 21st conservatives don't support or oppose?

Other than the 19th century conservative generally not being interested in foreign entanglements and being the world's policeman (although some would argue that is what a true conservative today opposes)?

Ok... so if that is the 'only' difference that you see, as you so imply...

Show that, on the whole, today's conservatives support:
-Chattle slavery
-Disenfranchisement of women
-Disnfranchisement of minoriies, especially blacks.

Be sure to cite your sources.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Thank you, too, for lowering the level of discussion by several orders of magnitude.

What did 19th century conservatives support or oppose that 21st conservatives don't support or oppose?

Other than the 19th century conservative generally not being interested in foreign entanglements and being the world's policeman (although some would argue that is what a true conservative today opposes)?

Which is confusing as to why democrats support Obama being the world's chief of police and getting into as many foreign entanglements as humanly possible.



I'll give you personally credit as you disagree with Obama's warmongering side, but that's not what I see from most democrats. They now have the same kill them and let god sort them out view that republicans had under Bush.

It's a 2 party system and until that changes one can either support the better choice, or the less evil choice,

or engage in the futile exercise of voting for someone else.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

Christian charity is predicated on the idea of free will - you have to willingly give for it to mean anything. Liberals who use the idea Christian charity as the basis for the imposition of their morality onto others in this regard either do not understand the concept, or do understand it and choose to be dishonet about it.

Given that liberals are virtually always ignorant and/or dishonest, it's really a toss-up as to which applies.

Jesus is an a la carte menu for most conservative Christians.

Congrats on completely failing to address anything in my post.
Glad to sse you never change.

 

[Dr.Drock]

It's the position that is holier, not me.

Connecting morality with a gov't that's killed hundreds of thousands of people in the last decade, yikes.

That's not what I'm connecting. Are you purposeful in your misinterpretations or just truly ignorant of my point?

I want to help old/poor and cannot do it all by myself.

Helping old/poor is the moral high road but it doesn't make me any better or worse than you.

It's not that difficult a concept, why are you having such a hard time with it?

We both want to help the old/poor, we just have different ideas on how to do that.

That's not good enough for you.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

So you don't see the dichotomy, ok.


The other 99% of us do.

Another give me, give me, give me complainer . . . "silver platter" mentality? Since when is it the Federal Governments job to provide for everyone's needs? Care to show me in the Constitution where it's the governments role to provide the "needs" of every American in an attempt to see that they are happy? Rather, it's called taking some 'personal responsibility'. Perhaps you heard of the term? You don't like earning $15 an hour, then be a business owner and invest in yourself. Don't always look to the easy way out of "getting more" simply because you refuse to take upon yourself the necessary risks, but prefer to do what requires less work for you - simply take from someone else.

You use the word "you" a lot when you go on your tea bagger talking point rant.

Do you mean me specifically or is that just a metaphor for everyone/anyone that doesn't agree with you?

It refers to those individuals who share in the belief's that government should provide FOR them. They don't wish to take on the role of "personal responsibility" of earning for themselves the lifestyle they desire, but rather simply take from one class of sucessful people and allow government to provide for those without. They believe it's the federal government's to role to redistribute the success of some and reward those without (even though they can't support such an ideology in the US Constitution).