Just what IS conservativism?

Bfgrn

Bfgrn

New member
What is conservatism? In my opinion, it is respect for the past and the wisdom of our ancestors. Their lives were built on their ancestors and so it goes, from one generation to the next. You ultimately respect their lives and toil not by paying lip service to it or using empty rhetoric like 'family values'. You do it by embracing those values. You do it by making their hard earned lessons your easy learned lessons. You do it by respecting and fighting for the policies and programs they crafted that increased the benefits and lessened the losses to our communities and our society.

How did our ancestors craft these policies and programs, were they based on some ideology? I believe they were based on common decency, respect for your neighbors, common sense, experience, trial and error and a strong sense of community.

I was raised in the 1950's. My dad was the sole provider, and my mom was a housewife and mother. We didn't call it 'family values', we called it family. When I came home from school, no matter what kind of day I had, it became brighter as soon as I walked in the door to a 'hi honey' from my mom. It not only brightened my day, it built self worth and a positive self image. All my friends and school mates had a similar story...a father that worked and a mother that stayed home to raise and nurture their children. None of us kids ever knew or even cared what anyone else's father did for a living. None of us had to go without; food, clothing, pets, bikes, baseball gloves, doctor care (our doctor used to come to the house), a quality public education with all the extras; sports, arts, school run ice rink, summer swimming and sports programs etc. But none of us were pampered or spoiled either.

THAT is exactly what I want for my kids and for my grand-kids.

So...In a very real way I AM truly a conservative.

So, what is conservatism? I don't hear people that call themselves conservatives talk that way or think that way. I don't hear talk of building, I hear talk of tearing down. I don't hear talk of a helping hand, I hear talk of letting them fail. I don't hear talk of the public good, I hear talk about me and mine. I don't hear compassion for fellow citizens, I hear disdain. I never hear them talk about human capital, just mammon. These so called conservatives are ideologues that want to dismantle any shred of community and replace it with SELF interest.

That is not 'conservatism', that is called narcissism.

"You shall rise in the presence of grey hairs, give honor to the aged, and fear God, I am the Lord"
Leviticus 19:32
 
I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
Click to expand...
Ben Franklin
 
Bfgrn said:
What is conservatism? In my opinion, it is respect for the past and the wisdom of our ancestors. Their lives were built on their ancestors and so it goes, from one generation to the next. You ultimately respect their lives and toil not by paying lip service to it or using empty rhetoric like 'family values'. You do it by embracing those values. You do it by making their hard earned lessons your easy learned lessons. You do it by respecting and fighting for the policies and programs they crafted that increased the benefits and lessened the losses to our communities and our society.

How did our ancestors craft these policies and programs, were they based on some ideology? I believe they were based on common decency, respect for your neighbors, common sense, experience, trial and error and a strong sense of community.

I was raised in the 1950's. My dad was the sole provider, and my mom was a housewife and mother. We didn't call it 'family values', we called it family. When I came home from school, no matter what kind of day I had, it became brighter as soon as I walked in the door to a 'hi honey' from my mom. It not only brightened my day, it built self worth and a positive self image. All my friends and school mates had a similar story...a father that worked and a mother that stayed home to raise and nurture their children. None of us kids ever knew or even cared what anyone else's father did for a living. None of us had to go without; food, clothing, pets, bikes, baseball gloves, doctor care (our doctor used to come to the house), a quality public education with all the extras; sports, arts, school run ice rink, summer swimming and sports programs etc. But none of us were pampered or spoiled either.

THAT is exactly what I want for my kids and for my grand-kids.

So...In a very real way I AM truly a conservative.

So, what is conservatism? I don't hear people that call themselves conservatives talk that way or think that way. I don't hear talk of building, I hear talk of tearing down. I don't hear talk of a helping hand, I hear talk of letting them fail. I don't hear talk of the public good, I hear talk about me and mine. I don't hear compassion for fellow citizens, I hear disdain. I never hear them talk about human capital, just mammon. These so called conservatives are ideologues that want to dismantle any shred of community and replace it with SELF interest.

That is not 'conservatism', that is called narcissism.

"You shall rise in the presence of grey hairs, give honor to the aged, and fear God, I am the Lord"
Leviticus 19:32
Click to expand...

Your childhood was based on partriarchal sex abuse and the stunting of your mother. Family = rape.
 
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

I've been around since Harry Truman was President, so I lived through a good portion of the liberal era that started with the New Deal and ended with the Great Society. It was an era with huge economic growth and shared wealth, fantastic successes in technology, vast expansion of citizen freedoms and liberties and the growth of a middle class that defined this country and made America the 'city on the hill', the envy of the world.

That era ended at the end of the 1960's and the conservative era began. It has continued ever since. It has been a negative mirror image of the liberal era. We now lead the world only in the dubious like incarcerating human beings, killing innocent people and launching Hirohito sneak attacks on sovereign nations.

So my question, what blame do Republicans and conservatives deserve? You can't have the power, profess 'personable responsibility', then turn around and blame those out of power.
 
Bfgrn said:
Nice quote. What's your point? I don't hear conservatives talk about 'doing good to the poor'

Keep trying...
Click to expand...

Welfare reform and school vouchers are two of the most glaring examples, resisted by liberals such as yourself. Oh, and conservatives donate a lot more money than liberals do.

There is no stopping libtards from repeating lies about conservatives though. But when folks finally figure out that they have been systematically lied to, they will never trust liberals again. That's what happened to me anyway.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Welfare reform and school vouchers are two of the most glaring examples, resisted by liberals such as yourself. Oh, and conservatives donate a lot more money than liberals do.

There is no stopping libtards from repeating lies about conservatives though. But when folks finally figure out that they have been systematically lied to, they will never trust liberals again. That's what happened to me anyway.
Click to expand...


Damn Yankee said:
Oh, and conservatives donate a lot more money than liberals do.

But when folks finally figure out that they have been systematically lied to, they will never trust liberals again.
Click to expand...

Lies, trust?

THE Arthur Brooks study

Arthur Brooks writes: "When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer [citing the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS) and the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS)]". (pp. 21-22)

So, according to THE Arthur Brooks study: conservatives believe in the giving of mammon (money) and liberals believe in the giving of themselves.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Welfare reform and school vouchers are two of the most glaring examples, resisted by liberals such as yourself.
Click to expand...

Ah, the 'Contract with America' authoritarians era.

We've had over 30 years of 'conservative' policies and governance.

The Republicans and the right in America today believe the only way to solve our problems is through punishment. And if that doesn't work, the punishment is just not severe enough. I suggest you research the 1994 Crimes Bill and how Republicans and the right demonized the most constructive part of that bill that addressed societal problems.

In the early to mid 90's Congress crafted a crimes bill. I will not not go into the many unintended consequences of the bill, but the original funding framework called for equal thirds of the money to go to 1) police enforcement 2) prisons 3) crime prevention

The crime prevention part of the bill would go toward education, job training, community engagement by law enforcement, child-centered activities (money for arts and crafts, dance programs, recreational activities, nutrition training, and so forth), assorted inner city youth activity programs, urban parks and recreation, schools (money is to be used "to improve the academic and social development of youths by instituting a collaborative structure that trains and coordinates efforts of social workers, teachers, and principles."), youth development for such activities as "providing youth with life skills" , drug treatment programs in prisons. and facilities like community centers.

Statistics showed that the majority of youth crimes are committed after school lets out and before dinner time. It is not difficult to see what is missing during that time period, adult supervision. So the idea was to provide a safe and supervised facility where these kids could go.

It was during this period that Newt Gingrich and the 'Contract with America' Republicans took over Congress.

The 'Contract with America' Republicans attacked and demonized this part of the bill. They spun it, relabeled it and added a racial slur, They called the prevention part of the bill paying for 'midnight basketball'

The real irony of that debate; Police Chiefs from around the country ascended on Washington to lobby Congress FOR the prevention provisions, because they knew that the best way to help law enforcement was not more police or more punishment, it was through education, training and community activism.
 
are you sure your quote is accurate?.......
http://reason.com/archives/2006/12/19/the-giving-gap;

Brooks shows that those who say they strongly oppose redistribution by government to remedy income inequality give over 10 times more to charity than those who strongly support government intervention, with a difference of $1,627 annually versus $140 to all causes. The average donation to educational causes among redistributionists was eight dollars per year, compared with $140 from their ideological opposites, and $96 annually to health care causes from free marketeers versus $11 from egalitarians.

A 2002 poll found that those who thought government "was spending too much money on welfare" were significantly more likely than those who wanted increased spending on welfare to give directions to someone on the street, return extra change to a cashier, or give food and/or money to a homeless person.
Click to expand...

ah, here is your error, you didn't use the whole quote......was that intentional?....

What he found was that self-described conservatives were ``a percentage point or two'' more likely to give to charity than self-described liberals. That was surprising enough, he thought.

30 Percent More

But what really astounded him was the amount of giving: In 2000, he says, conservative households gave 30 percent more money to charity than liberal households.

The discrepancy wasn't a function of income; on average, liberal families annually earn 6 percent more than conservative families. The difference in giving held throughout every income level. Indeed, poor conservative families gave a larger percentage of income than wealthy liberal families.

``That was the wow,'' Brooks told me. A former Democrat- turned-Republican-turned-independent, Brooks says he has no ideological interest in the data's outcome.
Click to expand...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aiQByDMC_7c8&refer=columnist_ferguson

Both liberals and conservatives claim to care more about the poor. But which group is backing up that claim with cash? Arthur Brooks' examines this in his new book, "Who Really Cares."

His study shows that conservatives give more of their time, money, and even blood to help out the less fortunate.
Click to expand...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=159_1211924035
sort of fucks up your argument to use all the facts, doesn't it......
 
Last edited:
Bfgrn said:
Lies, trust?

THE Arthur Brooks study

Arthur Brooks writes: "When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer [citing the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS) and the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS)]". (pp. 21-22)

So, according to THE Arthur Brooks study: conservatives believe in the giving of mammon (money) and liberals believe in the giving of themselves.
Click to expand...

More lies by you. Brook's study is summarized here:

People who identify themselves as conservatives donate money to charity more often than people who identify themselves as liberals. They donate more money and a higher percentage of their incomes.

It is not that conservatives have more money. Liberal families average 6 percent higher incomes than conservative families.

...

Conservatives not only donate more money to charity than liberals do, conservatives volunteer more time as well. More conservatives than liberals also donate blood.

According to Professor Brooks: "If liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply of the United States would jump about 45 percent."
Click to expand...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18218
 
Bfgrn said:
Ah, the 'Contract with America' authoritarians era.

We've had over 30 years of 'conservative' policies and governance.

The Republicans and the right in America today believe the only way to solve our problems is through punishment. And if that doesn't work, the punishment is just not severe enough. I suggest you research the 1994 Crimes Bill and how Republicans and the right demonized the most constructive part of that bill that addressed societal problems.

In the early to mid 90's Congress crafted a crimes bill. I will not not go into the many unintended consequences of the bill, but the original funding framework called for equal thirds of the money to go to 1) police enforcement 2) prisons 3) crime prevention

The crime prevention part of the bill would go toward education, job training, community engagement by law enforcement, child-centered activities (money for arts and crafts, dance programs, recreational activities, nutrition training, and so forth), assorted inner city youth activity programs, urban parks and recreation, schools (money is to be used "to improve the academic and social development of youths by instituting a collaborative structure that trains and coordinates efforts of social workers, teachers, and principles."), youth development for such activities as "providing youth with life skills" , drug treatment programs in prisons. and facilities like community centers.

Statistics showed that the majority of youth crimes are committed after school lets out and before dinner time. It is not difficult to see what is missing during that time period, adult supervision. So the idea was to provide a safe and supervised facility where these kids could go.

It was during this period that Newt Gingrich and the 'Contract with America' Republicans took over Congress.

The 'Contract with America' Republicans attacked and demonized this part of the bill. They spun it, relabeled it and added a racial slur, They called the prevention part of the bill paying for 'midnight basketball'

The real irony of that debate; Police Chiefs from around the country ascended on Washington to lobby Congress FOR the prevention provisions, because they knew that the best way to help law enforcement was not more police or more punishment, it was through education, training and community activism.
Click to expand...

That's what it was: midnight basketball. It was a stupid idea.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
are you sure your quote is accurate?.......
http://reason.com/archives/2006/12/19/the-giving-gap;



ah, here is your error, you didn't use the whole quote......was that intentional?....



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aiQByDMC_7c8&refer=columnist_ferguson

sort of fucks up your argument to use all the facts, doesn't it......
Click to expand...

Concerns About Arthur Brooks's "Who Really Cares."--



Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed

bushstates300.jpg


The Tax Foundation has released a fascinating report showing which states benefit from federal tax and spending policies, and which states foot the bill.

US 50 States MapThe report shows that of the 32 states (and the District of Columbia) that are "winners" -- receiving more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 76% are Red States that voted for George Bush in 2000. Indeed, 17 of the 20 (85%) states receiving the most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Red States. Here are the Top 10 states that feed at the federal trough (with Red States highlighted in bold):


States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

In contrast, of the 16 states that are "losers" -- receiving less in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 69% are Blue States that voted for Al Gore in 2000. Indeed, 11 of the 14 (79%) of the states receiving the least federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Blue States. Here are the Top 10 states that supply feed for the federal trough (with Blue States highlighted in bold):

States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)

Two states -- Florida and Oregon (coincidentally, the two closest states in the 2000 Presidential election) -- received $1.00 in federal spending for each $1.00 in federal taxes paid.
 
Last edited:
Bfgrn said:
Concerns About Arthur Brooks's "Who Really Cares."--



Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed

bushstates300.jpg


The Tax Foundation has released a fascinating report showing which states benefit from federal tax and spending policies, and which states foot the bill.

US 50 States MapThe report shows that of the 32 states (and the District of Columbia) that are "winners" -- receiving more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 76% are Red States that voted for George Bush in 2000. Indeed, 17 of the 20 (85%) states receiving the most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Red States. Here are the Top 10 states that feed at the federal trough (with Red States highlighted in bold):


States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

In contrast, of the 16 states that are "losers" -- receiving less in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 69% are Blue States that voted for Al Gore in 2000. Indeed, 11 of the 14 (79%) of the states receiving the least federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Blue States. Here are the Top 10 states that supply feed for the federal trough (with Blue States highlighted in bold):

States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)

Two states -- Florida and Oregon (coincidentally, the two closest states in the 2000 Presidential election) -- received $1.00 in federal spending for each $1.00 in federal taxes paid.
Click to expand...

So?
 
Bfgrn said:
Concerns About Arthur Brooks's "Who Really Cares."--



Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed

bushstates300.jpg


The Tax Foundation has released a fascinating report showing which states benefit from federal tax and spending policies, and which states foot the bill.

US 50 States MapThe report shows that of the 32 states (and the District of Columbia) that are "winners" -- receiving more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 76% are Red States that voted for George Bush in 2000. Indeed, 17 of the 20 (85%) states receiving the most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Red States. Here are the Top 10 states that feed at the federal trough (with Red States highlighted in bold):


States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

In contrast, of the 16 states that are "losers" -- receiving less in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 69% are Blue States that voted for Al Gore in 2000. Indeed, 11 of the 14 (79%) of the states receiving the least federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Blue States. Here are the Top 10 states that supply feed for the federal trough (with Blue States highlighted in bold):

States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)

Two states -- Florida and Oregon (coincidentally, the two closest states in the 2000 Presidential election) -- received $1.00 in federal spending for each $1.00 in federal taxes paid.
Click to expand...

lol, first you bring him up to make a point, then when I show you are lying you criticize him......your point was that conservatives didn't give more money in contributions than liberals.......you were shown to be an idiot.....what are you trying to claim now, that the money conservatives give came from the government in the first place?.....

I liked Brooke's comment on the interview....he said "Don't take this wrong. Certainly religious liberals are just as likely to give as religious conservatives. It's just that there aren't very many of them"............
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol, first you bring him up to make a point, then when I show you are lying you criticize him......your point was that conservatives didn't give more money in contributions than liberals.......you were shown to be an idiot.....what are you trying to claim now, that the money conservatives give came from the government in the first place?.....

I liked Brooke's comment on the interview....he said "Don't take this wrong. Certainly religious liberals are just as likely to give as religious conservatives. It's just that there aren't very many of them"............
Click to expand...

PostmodernProphet said:
your point was that conservatives didn't give more money in contributions than liberals

Certainly religious liberals are just as likely to give as religious conservatives. It's just that there aren't very many of them"............
Click to expand...

That was not my point.

And religious conservative contributions never help anyone that needs it. It goes to build mega churches.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
good lord, why do you think we're trying to get rid of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi?.......
Click to expand...

I have witnessed the total failure of 2 revolutions of extreme ideology in my lifetime. The Bolshevik revolution and the Reagan revolution. Unfettered communism and Unfettered capitalism BOTH failed miserably.

Ronald Reagan was the pied piper on the road to serfdom. Reagan and his right wing ideologues trashed their ancestors and dismantled everything they created, because these ideologues thought were smarter that anyone who ever existed.

What Reaganomics was and is: restoring an aristocracy. It succeeded magnificently. It wiped out everything liberals and REAL conservatives created and returned America to the Gilded age plutocracy.

4343827116_805f053e29_o.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top