Conservatism

[USMC the Almighty]

I don't see how you can imagine people being happy in a country that has gone from being under a very brutal but functioning regime to a very brutal anarchy.

First of all, there are elections and there is a gov't so it's not anarchy. Second, there is brutal violence in the U.S. everyday. One month last year (I think it was Jan. or Feb.) Detroit experienced more murders than Baghdad. It's impossible to end violence -- stability is the goal.

 

[9sublime]

First of all, there are elections and there is a gov't so it's not anarchy.

Just like the stable government in Afghanistan then.

 

[vyo476]

Just like the stable government in Afghanistan then.

Read his whole post. There are elections and a government so it isn't anarchy; however, it also isn't stable, which is why American troops are still there (and why USMC probably advocates their continued presence there - that is an assumption so if I'm wrong please feel free to yell at me all you like). The goal is to achieve stability for them. Detroit is just as violent as Badhdad is sometimes, but Detroit is also a stable society. Do you see the difference?

 

[9sublime]

Personally I find that the fact that Baghdad is the capital of the country and it is a complete mess with suicide bombers and civillian + servicemen dying everyday an indication of a highly unstable country. Sure, they may not technically be anarchist, but its bordering on it.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Read his whole post. There are elections and a government so it isn't anarchy; however, it also isn't stable, which is why American troops are still there (and why USMC probably advocates their continued presence there - that is an assumption so if I'm wrong please feel free to yell at me all you like). The goal is to achieve stability for them. Detroit is just as violent as Badhdad is sometimes, but Detroit is also a stable society. Do you see the difference?

Exactly, vyo. Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I would've liked to have been, but you did a nice job of summing up my argument.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Personally I find that the fact that Baghdad is the capital of the country and it is a complete mess with suicide bombers and civillian + servicemen dying everyday an indication of a highly unstable country. Sure, they may not technically be anarchist, but its bordering on it.

Most of Iraq is very stable. Only 14 of the 18 provinces are even contested. And as palerider once pointed out, 90% of the attacks are within a 50 miles radius of Baghdad. If we secure Baghdad (which this surge is currently doing) then we will secure the country. And since the media focuses on Baghdad more than any other part, when the Shi'ites leave (like al Sadr last month), they are effectively retreating from center stage.

 

[Justinian]

Hey folks

Yup. one thing liberals suffer from that conservatives don't is their lack of understanding for the other side. I understand both sides. That's why I'm a conservative. That whole thing you wrote can I guess be looked at in a comical way but in a serious way, it lacks any small comprehension of why conservatives think the way they do which arrives them at their conclusions. Personally I think most liberals are tricked into becoming one.

 

[TheWaffle]

Yup. one thing liberals suffer from that conservatives don't is their lack of understanding for the other side. I understand both sides. That's why I'm a conservative. That whole thing you wrote can I guess be looked at in a comical way but in a serious way, it lacks any small comprehension of why conservatives think the way they do which arrives them at their conclusions. Personally I think most liberals are tricked into becoming one.

Yup, you're right conservatives can definatly understand the other side, unlike liberals. That's why liberals fight for others while the conservative ideology encourages policies that helps themselves.

That's why conservatives are dumbstruck by the fact that there is an insurgency in Iraq which pretty much any liberal could have told you because they understand that most people don't like getting invaded.

That's why conservatives try and force their beliefs on people through law and policy while liberals support a state in which every person is free to determine their own beliefs.

That's why conservatives support ideas like the Trickle-down-effect where if it were to work it benefits the rich. But since it doesn't work it still benefits the rich and craps on the poor.

That's why conservatives believe that poverty indicates one's own failure as opposed to the result of a system that is prejudiced against them.

 

[palerider]

Yup, you're right conservatives can definatly understand the other side, unlike liberals. That's why liberals fight for others while the conservative ideology encourages policies that helps themselves.

Exactly what is to be gained if you fight for the other side when the other side is wrong? It is the lack of understanding and foresight that make liberals the kings of unintended consequences. They fight for policy and time after time see that policy do more damage than good and then expect to be judged on their intentions rather than their results.

That's why conservatives are dumbstruck by the fact that there is an insurgency in Iraq which pretty much any liberal could have told you because they understand that most people don't like getting invaded.

Conservatives are not dumbstruck. Moderates are. Myself and every conservative I know predicted this and suggested going into iraq with overwhelming force, establishing a curfew very early on and killing anyone in violation.

That's why conservatives try and force their beliefs on people through law and policy while liberals support a state in which every person is free to determine their own beliefs.

When I look at my life, and the rules that I must live by, the majority of them were put in place by self righteous liberals who believe that they know better than I how I should live my life. If you would like to compile a list of examples of liberals forcing their beliefs and conservatives forcing their beliefs, I will be happy to demonstrate exatly how wrong you are. Hell, here are a few examples of liberals forcing their beliefs on me right off the top of my head with no research at all.

Seat belt laws - helmet laws - laws that say that a business owner can't allow smoking in HIS OR HER own establishment - laws that make it illegal for me to carry more than 10K in cash - laws that require my bank to report me if I deposit more than 10K in cash - speech codes - laws that require me to get a building permit before building a structure on my own property that is more than 144 sauare feet - laws that prevent me from using my own property if it collects water from rain long enough to grow a certain kind of wetland grass - laws that prevent christmas displays - - - and the list can go on ad nauseum. There is a group that pushes their beliefs on everyone, but it is not conservatives.

That's why conservatives support ideas like the Trickle-down-effect where if it were to work it benefits the rich. But since it doesn't work it still benefits the rich and craps on the poor.

That is support of a belief, not enacted law. Show me the trickle down law. Liberals support ideas like minimum wage which in effect, takes those who can very least afford to lose their jobs out of the job market because they lack the skills to be worth what liberals say they must earn.

Your good intentions are worth very little to those who lose their livelyood or can't get that first job because employers can't afford to pay all of the benefits that liberals demand.

That's why conservatives believe that poverty indicates one's own failure as opposed to the result of a system that is prejudiced against them.

There are very few living in poverty in this country whose poverty can't be traced back to their own foolish choices and decisions.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

There are very few living in poverty in this country whose poverty can't be traced back to their own foolish choices and decisions.

everything else you said before this was atleast somewhat accurate. but then you get carried away, and type this little nugget.

In 2001 the Census Bureau reported about 33 million residents living in poverty in the United States, or about 12 percent of the total population.

So by "very few", you are saying that about 30 million people are living in poverty because of their own foolish choices and decisions.....?

I only have two questions, Where did you grow up and have you travelled around the country much? Because the above statement is one of the most ignorant things i've read on these boards.

 

[palerider]

everything else you said before this was atleast somewhat accurate. but then you get carried away, and type this little nugget.

In 2001 the Census Bureau reported about 33 million residents living in poverty in the United States, or about 12 percent of the total population.

So by "very few", you are saying that about 30 million people are living in poverty because of their own foolish choices and decisions.....?

I only have two questions, Where did you grow up and have you travelled around the country much? Because the above statement is one of the most ignorant things i've read on these boards.

I didn't grow up in any one place. My dad's profession reqired that we move every 4 to 6 years. And yes, I have lived in 23 states and there is only one that I have not visited.

Further, I stand by my position that in this country, if you are living in poverty, it is, in all likelyhood, due to your own bad decisions and or foolish actions.

 

[Coyote]

I didn't grow up in any one place. My dad's profession reqired that we move every 4 to 6 years. And yes, I have lived in 23 states and there is only one that I have not visited.

Further, I stand by my position that in this country, if you are living in poverty, it is, in all likelyhood, due to your own bad decisions and or foolish actions.

Not necessarily - sometimes yes, sometimes no. It's a bad idea to generalize. I've lived on both sides of the poverty issue. There was a good book I read looking at the complexity of poverty in America (without making judgements) - looking at geography, towns, following individual families and people, employers, employees and their skills and work ethics (or lack of them), and programs. It was called something like "The working poor in America". The problem is both Liberals and Conservatives tend to generalize when it comes to poverty.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

That's why liberals fight for others while the conservative ideology encourages policies that helps themselves.

You're right -- liberals do talk more about helping others, but that's where their sympathy for others end. Conservatives (especially Christians) are more charitable than liberals (as results from a study last year indicate). The reason for this is that liberals, contrary to their title, believe in big government, and thus, see it as the government's job to help everyone.

Conservatives believe in the sovereignty of the individual, and the virtues of self-reliance and personal responsibility where they are free to chose for themselves whether or not they wish to be charitable.

That's why conservatives are dumbstruck by the fact that there is an insurgency in Iraq which pretty much any liberal could have told you because they understand that most people don't like getting invaded.

Dumbstuck? And who's being invaded? We removed their dictator, gave them free elections, countless personal liberties, and many other freedom which the vast majority of the population cherishes. The U.S. wants to get the hell out of there ASAP. We're certainly not invading or occupying.

Liberals however, are fearful of armed conflict and wish to surrender the a fraction of the population that remains loyal to Saddam or to the Islamic cause.

That's why conservatives try and force their beliefs on people through law and policy while liberals support a state in which every person is free to determine their own beliefs.

Wrong. Our schools are the battleground for political indoctrination and liberals control this front overwhelmingly. The other battleground? The media.

Liberals are in control of the means to try and force beliefs on people, so it is absurd to suggest that conservatives even have the capability to force their beliefs on people.

Liberals hate opposition and debate. If they had their way, the U.S. would be a 1 party system.

That's why conservatives support ideas like the Trickle-down-effect where if it were to work it benefits the rich. But since it doesn't work it still benefits the rich and craps on the poor.

You clearly don't know a whole lot about conservative economics. The trickle-down is meant to use the rich as a vehicle for benefitting the poor.

That's why conservatives believe that poverty indicates one's own failure as opposed to the result of a system that is prejudiced against them.

And here's the fundamental difference. Liberals hate taking responsibility. It's always the fault of "the system" or "the man". It's never the individuals fault. They're not rich? Well obviously the system is prejudiced against them.

The system might be prejudiced against laziness, but not much else.

 

[Coyote]

And here's the fundamental difference. Liberals hate taking responsibility. It's always the fault of "the system" or "the man". It's never the individuals fault. They're not rich? Well obviously the system is prejudiced against them.

There's not really much of a difference. With conservatives, it's always the fault of the liberals.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

There's not really much of a difference. With conservatives, it's always the fault of the liberals.

Well now, there's a difference. That's because it always is the liberals' fault.