It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What is a "conservative"?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 10:11 PM
I used to be Conservative (aka Republican), and I took it as being a person that supported business, and trying to make the economy healthy by the business and helping them. I also supported a military that could do any job at any cost (if necessary).

But I say 'used to' because I got sick to my stomach of both and pretty much was like "Screw this, I'm an American, that's all I need to know!"

posted on May, 26 2006 @ 08:50 AM
sir solomon
correct me if i am wrong any who know the depths of political theory, but i dont think that what you are describing, is a true conservitive.
that sounds more like the big business supporting, military industrial complex neocon.
I get really annoyed when people just associate republicans and conservitives as one and the same.
I am a conservitive and there is nothing conservative about president bush or the republicans. they are spending a butt load of cash balooning the size of the government, while keeping our borders wide open.
i used to vote for the republicans because i thought they would remember the conservatives who voted for them. i will not support them any longer. i will not vote. ill let hillary take it in '08 if it needs be, because im sick of republicans.

anyways maybe this is why you feel disenchanted by the republicans/conservatives but you must realize that they are two seperate things.

[edit on 26-5-2006 by TheRepublic]

[edit on 26-5-2006 by TheRepublic]

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 08:20 AM
Not sure where I fall either:
Smaller and more efficient government
School vouchers - personal health and retirement savings accounts
Socially Liberal minus war on christianity and political correctedness
Abortion allowed in certain circumstances but also discouraged under other circumstances and gov. funds allowed to create educational programs to this effect
Need to be sovereign but also feel we need to be a wordly nation
take charge internationally
Strong borders but wider legal immigration. Strong military
The constitution. (that means I want y'all to kep yer guns, thos i dont have anymyself Its good to know a neighbor might if theres ever danger.)
Favor enviromental concerns, favor space travel.
Term limits for gov. programs like 2 years max..must be evaluated and repassed each time..this goes back to gov. efficiency which if key.
I welcome change but want the wisest elders to stop being so conservative and render up some advice on how to at least transition toward new societal situations.
Umm like that I spose. Little right of center, little futurist, libertarian willing to invest gov. money in science and space migration. Maybe if we spread out and release some pressure we can actually get back to smaller gov.

posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 03:07 PM
I'm more on the conservitive side, although I don't belong to any political party (The party system is the reason we have a lot of corruption, but that's for another thread) I will do my very best to keep my personal and political oppinions out of my answer

Maybe the best way to explain these terms is in ageneral context. Conservitive is one set of view on a continum that include moderate and liberal. These terms have little to do with specific policies, but rather with how the government exercises power in general. The spectrum goes from Anarcal, where there is no government or system of law, to Totalitarianism, when the government controls every detail of your life down to your bed time!

Moderate is the 1/2 point between the two!

Now, Conservative is more focused on individual rights and freedoms then the moderate. The term comes from Conserve meaning to protect. Generally, conservatives believe in limiting how much power the goverment has. They believe in Conserving the power of the people as oppose to the power of government. Conservative is 1/2 between Moderate and Anarchial.

Liberals, on the other hand believe in expanding the power of the government over it's people. They see Government regulation and control as the key to building a better country. Liberal is 1/2 way between Moderate and Totalitarianism.

If you're still a bit confused, don't feel bad, I didn't really get it until a few weeks ago myself!


posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 03:51 PM
But the people active in the US today that call themselves "conservative" are mostly statist rightwingers - the "individual freedoms" they support are almost exclusively economic ones. They've steadily increased the size of government, increased domestic surviellance, supported the drug war (though much of the "left" is in bed with them on this), supported anachronisms like sodomy laws, oppose legal abortions, etc etc... in other words they want to get government out of the boardroom and back into the bedroom.

The only real minarchists these days in the US are the Libertarians.

[edit on 11/6/06 by xmotex]

posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 06:26 AM

Originally posted by xmotex
The only real minarchists these days in the US are the Libertarians.

[edit on 11/6/06 by xmotex]

Forgive me for not knowing, but what is a minarchist? I've never seen that word before. At first glance it would suggest minimal government, is that right?


posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 11:57 AM
Yes, like an anarchist favors no government, an minarchist favors a minimal government.
Jefferson is a classic example of a minarchist.

EDIT: Wikipedia: minarchism

[edit on 11/7/06 by xmotex]

posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 12:36 PM
Did you vote?

DG, I guess I just saw this thread until today.

I prefer this explanation of the difference between conservatives and liberals.

A conservative believes that each person should try and maximize themselves and their own situations - thereby bringing up the status of the group (nation) as a whole. The old pioneer spirit, if you will.

While liberals seem to believe in 'homogenizing' the group by taking from (bringing down) the achievers to pull up the non-achievers - thereby leaving everyone more or less the same and in the middle. This approach always begs the question, "Why try extra hard if the extra results are given to someone that doesn't try hard or won't?"

There was a story, really an analogy, making the rounds awhile ago that helps put this in perspective.

It seems a girl wanted to talk with her father about a couple of issues. First, there was this friend of hers that she liked, but always got bad grades in school because she rarely studied. This friend was also always wanting the daughter to loan her some change and buy small items for her because she never had gotten an after school job. The other issue was that they were talking about the difference between liberals and conservatives in school, and from what she'd heard, she thought that maybe she was a liberal.

The father thought a bit and told her this. If you are a liberal, then in school you would think it was an excellent idea for the teacher to take away part of the A you just earned in math by studying so long and hard and give it to your friend so that they could have a C instead of failing. The daughter was appalled and said, "That's not fair when I did all the work!" Then he told her that if she was a liberal she would have no problem with her boss giving her friend a good part of her pay check each week so that the friend could have some spending money of her own. "No way!", said the daughter. "I earned that money by working hard."

Finally, the father said, "If that's how you feel, then there's no way you are a liberal."

Personally, I'm starting to lean more and more to the libertarian side. The Constitution is pretty much OK just the way it is ...

[edit on 11/7/2006 by centurion1211]

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in