What pisses me off about Modern Conservatism

[nitroz]

Not making a liberal post, but I'm here to say why I dislike modern conservatism.

I consider myself fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. Sorta what the republicans were long ago.




My main pet peeve with modern conservatism is that they almost always mix up "big government" with "big business".

Extra fees for using less power?
Extra fees for using solar energy?
Increasing costs for energy in general?
Asking for tax breaks?
The fact that it's difficult to do your taxes and you probably have to pay someone to do them?
Opposition against Tesla, banning them in some states?

Thats all big business's doing. Not big government's.

Yet I still see stuff like this, blaming the government.

The IRS originally intended to have employees do your taxes for free, so it wouldn't be such a shitty process. But guess what? Big Business lobbied against that, so they can force their foot in the door and profit from that. So you know what that means? You gotta do that shit yourself. If you can't, get ready to cough up $$$ to do your taxes, which may result in a miniscule refund or having to pay even more $$$. Big Business actually ended up hurting your wallet more, not big government.

Lets not forget this one. The majority of federal spending is defense. If we are in deficits, then why are we giving businesses tax breaks and laxening the rules for them, just only to pass the bill on taxpayers like you?


The lower class and middle classes are suffering and have actually been in decline. What about the upper class?

Why can't we just cut tax breaks, cut defense spending, give the tax businesses a kick in the ass, and give everyone an equal tax% based off their incomes? (like 15%)

And the service men and women who would be affected by the cuts? Re-assign them to domestic operations such as border patrol, federal drug enforcement, etc. Something that would benefit us in a positive way?



What IS big government?

Increases in tax.
Increasing gun control.
Increasing survellience. (spellcheck is off)
Less freedoms.


Theres a difference.




Now my next pet peeve..

"Morals", "Ethics", and religion being brought into the picture.
When our colonies developed, there were religious ones, and there were others that were formed with the intent of seperating the state and the church.

When the nation was formed, our first national polititans were AGAINST religion in our shit.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Samuel Adams, George Mason, Edmund Randolph, Rufus King, Patrick Henry, Oliver Wolcott, Oliver Ellsworth, Thomas Paine, etc. They were ALL AGAINST ANY RELIGION BEING IN ANY SORT OF POLITICS.


You don't want an abortion? Don't get one.
You don't want a gay marriage? Don't have one.
You want to give churches and marriages tax breaks, even though you voluntarily involve them with politics? No. (Though I'm for not taxing churches, aslong as they stay out of our politics. Church is a place for your beliefs, not politics.)
You want to change the laws to see fit with your beliefs? Get fucked!

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.

Although some government action implicating religion is permissible, and indeed unavoidable, it is not clear just how much the Establishment Clause tolerates. In the past, the Supreme Court has permitted religious invocations to open legislative session, government funding of bussing and textbooks for private religious schools, and efforts by school districts to arrange schedules to accommodate students’ extra-curricular religious education programs. The Court has ruled against some overtly religious displays at courthouses, state funding supplementing teacher salaries at religious schools, and some overly religious holiday decorations on public land.

(Establishment Clause | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute)


People often associate what I said above with "liberalism", but is it?
Yes and no. Big government is incorporating religion and shoving it onto the citizens.
I'm for not letting that happen, and want maintaining individual rights, liberties, and freedoms instead.



Thats why I hate modern conservatism and would RATHER have pre-cold war conservatism instead. They had their shit in order.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

Is this a cut and paste job by the Obama Politboro?

I never saw so many liberal left wing bumper sticker slogans and talking points crammed into such a short space.

I guess "nitroz" should at least be commended for packing 100 pounds of HOGWASH into a 50 pound bag.

 

[deltex1]

Oh.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Stopped reading after about the fourth line.

(yawn)

Happens every time.

Some confused person announces he hates what conservatives do... and then to "prove" it, he names the activites performed by liberals (in both parties), every time.

Never cites ONE conservative activity, such as dropping an unconstitutional program (or devolving it to the states). Or organizing neighborhoods to help their local homeless. Or setting up charities. Or making government pursue corruption and lawbreaking. etc. etc.

 

[Pogo]

Excellent thoughts. And yeah, I'd say that's basically Liberalism. Nuttin' wrong with that, those founder names listed above are the voices of Liberalism that founded this country.

Two relevant quotes from notable Republicans, uttered by chance 100 years apart, come to mind:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes." -- Dwight Eisenhower, 1961

(Ike originally wrote the phrase as "military-industrial-congressional complex")

and

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." -- Abraham Lincoln, 1861

We miss these kinds of Republicans.

 

[occupied]

I especially agree with the moralizing habit conservatives engage in all of the time. You would be hard-pressed to find a self-described conservative who does not feel that conservatism has exclusive ownership of the moral high-ground.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

I especially agree with the moralizing habit conservatives engage in all of the time. You would be hard-pressed to find a self-described conservative who does not feel that conservatism has exclusive ownership of the moral high-ground.

We do.

Guess you didn't get the memo.

 

[occupied]

I especially agree with the moralizing habit conservatives engage in all of the time. You would be hard-pressed to find a self-described conservative who does not feel that conservatism has exclusive ownership of the moral high-ground.

We do.

Guess you didn't get the memo.

Rigid unquestioning moral certitude is the bedrock of fascism.

 

[R.D.]

Not making a liberal post, but I'm here to say why I dislike modern conservatism.

I consider myself fiscally conservative, but socially liberal.

Stop kidding yourself, or just stop lying. You're a liberal.

 

[nitroz]

Stopped reading after about the fourth line.

(yawn)

Happens every time.

Some confused person announces he hates what conservatives do... and then to "prove" it, he names the activites performed by liberals (in both parties), every time.

Never cites ONE conservative activity, such as dropping an unconstitutional program (or devolving it to the states). Or organizing neighborhoods to help their local homeless. Or setting up charities. Or making government pursue corruption and lawbreaking. etc. etc.

I saved the last line just for you <3

Thats why I hate modern conservatism and would RATHER have pre-cold war conservatism instead. They had their shit in order.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Ahhh.

One thing you forget. Government is a business. It collects revenue like a business. It runs itself like a business, so for us, the parallels are too striking to distinguish the two from one another. One is just as predatory as the other. One is just as corrupt as the other.

What pisses me off about modern liberalism is their desire to meld the two.

 

[nitroz]

Ahhh.

One thing you forget. Government is a business. It collects revenue like a business. It runs itself like a business, so for us, the parallels are too striking to distinguish the two from one another. One is just as predatory as the other. One is just as corrupt as the other.

What pisses me off about modern liberalism is their desire to meld the two.

The government is here to work for us.

Yet, it's working for business.

 

[occupied]

Stopped reading after about the fourth line.

(yawn)

Happens every time.

Some confused person announces he hates what conservatives do... and then to "prove" it, he names the activites performed by liberals (in both parties), every time.

Never cites ONE conservative activity, such as dropping an unconstitutional program (or devolving it to the states). Or organizing neighborhoods to help their local homeless. Or setting up charities. Or making government pursue corruption and lawbreaking. etc. etc.

I saved the last line just for you <3

Thats why I hate modern conservatism and would RATHER have pre-cold war conservatism instead. They had their shit in order.

No they didn't, they sucked as much as conservatives always have, perhaps even more-so, did you mean "Republicans" rather than "conservatives"?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Ahhh.

One thing you forget. Government is a business. It collects revenue like a business. It runs itself like a business, so for us, the parallels are too striking to distinguish the two from one another. One is just as predatory as the other. One is just as corrupt as the other.

What pisses me off about modern liberalism is their desire to meld the two.

The government is here to work for us.

Yet, it's working for business.

Say what now? How is it "working for business?" And how is it "working for us?" I don't think you understand. When the government does everything to make it hard to be a business, it isn't working for business. When it makes it hard for a business to hire affordable labor, it is neither working for the business or for us.

 

[The T]

Ahhh.

One thing you forget. Government is a business. It collects revenue like a business. It runs itself like a business, so for us, the parallels are too striking to distinguish the two from one another. One is just as predatory as the other. One is just as corrupt as the other.

What pisses me off about modern liberalism is their desire to meld the two.

And steal Liberty in the process.

 

[Erand7899]

I especially agree with the moralizing habit conservatives engage in all of the time. You would be hard-pressed to find a self-described conservative who does not feel that conservatism has exclusive ownership of the moral high-ground.

If I didn't consider my political beliefs to be the moral high ground, I would alter my political beliefs. Not a hard concept to comprehend.

Perhaps you can enlighten us as to where conservatism has lost the moral high ground.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The people who responded so far should read my avatar.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/u...le-class-is-no-longer-the-worlds-richest.html

The American middle class, long the most affluent in the world, has lost that distinction.

While the wealthiest Americans are outpacing many of their global peers, a New York Times analysis shows that across the lower- and middle-income tiers, citizens of other advanced countries have received considerably larger raises over the last three decades.

After-tax middle-class incomes in Canada &#8212; substantially behind in 2000 &#8212; now appear to be higher than in the United States. The poor in much of Europe earn more than poor Americans.

The numbers, based on surveys conducted over the past 35 years, offer some of the most detailed publicly available comparisons for different income groups in different countries over time. They suggest that most American families are paying a steep price for high and rising income inequality.

Although economic growth in the United States continues to be as strong as in many other countries, or stronger, a small percentage of American households is fully benefiting from it. Median income in Canada pulled into a tie with median United States income in 2010 and has most likely surpassed it since then. Median incomes in Western European countries still trail those in the United States, but the gap in several &#8212; including Britain, the Netherlands and Sweden &#8212; is much smaller than it was a decade ago.

 

[Redfish]

The people who responded so far should read my avatar.

Reagan was right about that, the majority of conservatives agree.

Got anything else?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

How Did Canada's Middle Class Get So Rich? - Derek Thompson - The Atlantic