It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

question for conservatives

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   
though i am personally liberal i would just like to ask conservatives something...


you wish to conserve the status quo or take things back a few steps towards a previous system... which was brought about through acts of liberalism against those that would have had opposition from those like yourselves

do you realize the inherent irony of your position?




posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Well I can only speak for myself and know one else on this matter.
I am more inclined to vote along Conservative lines because I don't think the government should tell schools what they can serve in tuck shops and other such measures from left wing do gooders . I am against change for change sake but I am willing to support change if I feel it is necessary and we will be better off afterwards.



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



I am not really sure what you are asking.


I personally don't think that the social system that we are moving towards now is a good one, no. I don't know if that is what you are talking about or not. You really weren't very specific in your question.



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by SpeakerofTruth
 


ok, conservatism is an act of maintaining what is already there... or returning to a previous state in some cases...

the things conservatives wish to protect are all inherently products of LIBERAL acts.

a conservative wants to preserve capitalism, which was liberal when it was first thought of.
a conservative wants "traditional" marriage... which actually isn't something so traditional, as marriage prior to the establishment of THAT tradition was between 1 man and 1 or more women...

understand better?



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 09:36 AM
link   
What do tearing down overgrown federal government, not spending what you don't have, protecting peoples rights to say whatever foolish thing they want and to own whatever they want be it a Corvette or a cruise missile, securing the nations border, keeping our nose out of other nations goings ons and not tolerating taxation in any form have to do with gay marriage?

I dont know. I'm pretty Conservative and I have no desire to tell a woman she cant suck a baby out of her womb or that two homosexuals cant marry or that some pot head cant get stoned.

I think your idea of what "conservatism" is flawed.

I dont want to take anyone back in time to some magic age that nevr existed. Well, maybe the fed could could be taken back 300 years or so. Whats that? There was no fed 300 years ago? Oops.

I have a question for you, which TV show did you learn about conservatism from? There are som nuts who call themselves conservatives just like there are some nuts who call themselves liberals. These nuts do not define the word. They just claim it. Like current neo-cons. They were born from former Communists, not Conservatives. The churchy moral police, theyre just churchy moral police. Nothing more.

Take a liberal who says nobody should own guns, guns are bad. Take a conservative who says abortion is murder, abortion should be banned. These are two people with their own opinions. Congratulations! You have an opinion. Now stop pretending your opinion is some grand all-encompassing magic postion that every person who relates to you in a specific way shares. I know plenty of self-proclaimed liberals who are crazy about their guns and plenty of self proclaimed conservatives who don't care if you want to live with choosing to abort or where you prefer to stick you penis.

Sorry but you initial presumption is flawed. If you want to go waaay back to the philosophical roots of liberalism and conservatism then by all means do it but you wont find anything even remotely resembling either moder liberals or modern conservatives.

P.S. Party affiliation doesn't qualify a person as being either conservative or liberal just in case that is one of your notions. Republican is not a synonym for conservative and Democrat is not a synonym for liberal.

But none of that matters. Everyone has in their head what TV, radio, government school, their peers have all taught to them and reaffirmed for them and no amount of logic or fact will change that. I dont know how many times I'm about to get reality through to somebody then they run off with their friends and listen to Limbaugh or watch Olberman only to return back to the conversation right back at the ignorant beginning full of talking points and issues that do not matter at all like homo sex.

If this isn't you than congratulations. If this is you than I suppose you have a lifetime of being bounced back and forth from one pointless cause to another while we all get shuffled into huge cities, assigned government jobs and government food and government healthcare and cease to ear a paycheck as it is all just put into the government pot automatically and live short pale sad lives connected to screens in out cubes at work, shuttled by bus home where we eat our government food and connect to the home screen until we take enough pills to make us sleep.

But then, I know a frighteningly high number of people who WANT life to be this way.

Thats the one real issue. Do you want to be free to make your own fortune, suffer your own defeat, live life as you want to live without any interference from any supposed authority or do you want to have everything handed to you and you neighbors as mediocre as that handout might be? Those are the real two camps of citizenry. Anarchists, Libertarians, what are referred to as conservatives, whatever and welfare staters, Orwellian appeasers, what are referred to as liberals or whatever you want to call them. Instead we all get sidetracked and broken up into groups that complain about gay marriage, Christmas decorations, the legality of drugs and firearms. All the while every right is being whittled away and taxes keep going up, and government keeps getting bigger.

It all boils down to freedom vs. government. Fear vs. liberty. For the past hundred years or so fear and government have been beating freedom and liberty to death. But its okay because two men cant get married, social security solves everyones retirement concerns and banning a bayonet lug somehow saved lives.

Don't fall into the trap that this question represents. Especially just for the sake of starting an argument with someone. Unless you're some sort of masochistic fascist I promise you whatever entertainment you get from seeking out these arguments won't be worth the end result of such narrow thinking and simple distraction.



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
What do tearing down overgrown federal government, not spending what you don't have, protecting peoples rights to say whatever foolish thing they want and to own whatever they want be it a Corvette or a cruise missile, securing the nations border, keeping our nose out of other nations goings ons and not tolerating taxation in any form have to do with gay marriage?


i said A conservative, not EVERY conservative. nobody within the conservative political ideology set is the same...



I think your idea of what "conservatism" is flawed.


actually, yours is. by looking at what you're saying you want LIBERTARIANISM



I have a question for you, which TV show did you learn about conservatism from?


this is more than a bit insulting. i learned about conservatism through looking over the majority conservative opinions and underlying conservative political ideology as it has grown throughout history.



There are som nuts who call themselves conservatives just like there are some nuts who call themselves liberals. These nuts do not define the word. They just claim it. Like current neo-cons. They were born from former Communists, not Conservatives. The churchy moral police, theyre just churchy moral police. Nothing more.


ahh... but the churchy moral police are actually truly conservative from a moral viewpoint.

and the neo-cons were born of former fascists if anything.



Sorry but you initial presumption is flawed. If you want to go waaay back to the philosophical roots of liberalism and conservatism then by all means do it but you wont find anything even remotely resembling either moder liberals or modern conservatives.


yes, i know this... however, we aren't talking about the roots. if you look at the roots of communism, stalinist russia wasn't communist, but we still call it communist.

ok, the rest is blah blah blah you're wrong and you continue to assume that i get my ideas from mass media alone...



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Now that is one post to be proud of.

and topped off by the OP coming back with
"ok, the rest is blah blah blah you're wrong"

now that just made my night



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by JustTheFacts
 


...i was referring to the content of his post, not as a reply.



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Conservativism has been split into several different positions. The Globalists: asses of the world, the universals: Wanting the joining or acceptance of all peoples into one faith and the "conservation" of freedoms (like me), and the Backwards Hick: The south US is simple enough for a definition.

At one time, they were all the second one, but as republican automatically became integrated into Conservativism, this has caused a split. Mainly due to corruption.

I suppose I'm a pro Conservative Universalism.



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
Conservativism has been split into several different positions.


ok, let's see..



The Globalists: asses of the world,


globalism makes you an ass? it's the only feasible way to end world hunger, end illiteracy, and provide a decent standard of living for all instead of having the world's worth squandered by 1% of its population

what the hell is wrong with that?



the universals: Wanting the joining or acceptance of all peoples into one faith and the "conservation" of freedoms (like me),


except for those with no faith, after looking at your post
have fun excluding the 3rd or 4th largest group in the world



and the Backwards Hick: The south US is simple enough for a definition.


hooray for gross simplification.



At one time, they were all the second one, but as republican automatically became integrated into Conservativism, this has caused a split. Mainly due to corruption.



I suppose I'm a pro Conservative Universalism.


conservation of freedoms? how about we get all the freedoms for everyone before we start conserving them?

homosexuals aren't treated as equal members of society, for them you're conserving their positions as second class citizens
sadly, it's the same with many other minority groups, so your "conservatism" is only there to protect those few that are truly "free"



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Seems like we have a thread started by a troll. No matter what answer he gets he'll just ignore whatever anyone says and fall back on what he assumes are grand universal truths. What he doesn't get are that these grand truths are his alone.

Lets keep is as basic and low brow as possible so that just maybe you'll understand.

I'm conservative. I do NOT believe homosexuals are second class citizens. I do NOT believe any minority group is inferior in any way (except maybe trolls).

Also, I do NOT support some neo-con globalist NWO agenda as you have openly admitted to doing. Now that I know globalism and a one-world government are you big points of sale I can feel pretty confident in giving you a starring role on my ignore list. After all, I can only hear so many ignore the whole no-option-we-own-you global government thing, think of Star Trek and the wonders of sex with alien chicks arguments from nerdy fanboy 12 year olds before I start pulling out hair. Flesh out your flow chart a little bit if you think some Mexican billionaire can do anything to get food into Somalia. Or not. I'm sure your ideas are very comforting to you. God forbid you take a step back and look at them.

If anyone else cares to pointlessly carry this thread by all means go for it. He doesn't want an answer. He doesn't want a challenge. He just wants to thrash about and yell until somebody gets his bottle for him.

I wish I could say it's been a pleasure and interesting to consider your POV but I can't. You globalist shill.

By the way, you must love this "war on terror", huh? In Tragedy and Hope Quigly goes on and on about what it is you seem to want and he goes back again and again to describe the biggest obstacle of global government will be the tribal regions, i.e. Afganistan, Pakistan, and all the other "terror" hotbeds that will prove a problem to global government. It must be a dream come true for you to see those regions nuked to glass, huh? How dare they demand independence in the face of one world government! But I'm sure in your world just writing them big enough checks funded by taxing those Mexican billionaires will suddenly bring about peace and a certain complacence among those troublesome tribals. Soemtimes people rebel just for spite. Will there be enough global prisons for all of them? Enough UN troops to police them all? From the fundies in Afganistan to the fundies of Alabama to the hick trapper in Idaho who just wants to be left alone you're going to have to have quite a policing body to keep the peace in your magic
global order.

Have fun with that.

On second thought, I think it'll be more fun with you off of my ignore list. After all, as a conservative, it would be hypocritical to the core to censor anything or anyone.



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Seems like we have a thread started by a troll. No matter what answer he gets he'll just ignore whatever anyone says and fall back on what he assumes are grand universal truths. What he doesn't get are that these grand truths are his alone.


name calling and presumption.
i'm falling back on classical definitions of conservatism as well as modern ones, not some grand delusion that i personally hold



Lets keep is as basic and low brow as possible so that just maybe you'll understand.


wow, condescension
insult my motives when you want, insult my intelligence at your own peril.



I'm conservative. I do NOT believe homosexuals are second class citizens. I do NOT believe any minority group is inferior in any way (except maybe trolls).


then you're not a SOCIAL conservative, i understand the difference. conservatism has many facets, the particular questions you're looking at were pointed towards social conservatives.



Also, I do NOT support some neo-con globalist NWO agenda as you have openly admitted to doing.


....ok, i said globalism is good... but i haven't said anything about a massive superpower government controlling it

and you're saying i'm presumptive?
i am no neo-con. i'm a neo-prog if anything.



Now that I know globalism and a one-world government are you big points of sale I can feel pretty confident in giving you a starring role on my ignore list.


...well, you have part of it right. i'm for globalism and the eradication of tribalism mentalities which harm humanity and cause wars... but not one world government.

and you'll just ignore me out of... dun dun DUN: ignorance



After all, I can only hear so many ignore the whole no-option-we-own-you global government thing, think of Star Trek and the wonders of sex with alien chicks arguments from nerdy fanboy 12 year olds before I start pulling out hair.


wow, more name-calling and presumption
how about this, you show me how a nationalist system can benefit the majority of the world, i'll say globalism isn't the best idea.



Flesh out your flow chart a little bit if you think some Mexican billionaire can do anything to get food into Somalia. Or not. I'm sure your ideas are very comforting to you. God forbid you take a step back and look at them.


wow, more presumption after telling me off about presumption!



If anyone else cares to pointlessly carry this thread by all means go for it. He doesn't want an answer. He doesn't want a challenge.


no, i just want you to realize the whole point of this.
maybe the title should have been "a question for social conservatives" but i guess the edit button isn't an option at this point.



He just wants to thrash about and yell until somebody gets his bottle for him.


wow, this is just plain idiocy here. i'm mainly asking social conservatives about their positions and you get your panties in a bunch because i'm not addressing the full roots of the political position then you proceed to call me a child.



I wish I could say it's been a pleasure and interesting to consider your POV but I can't. You globalist shill.


MORE name calling. stop relying on a logical fallacy.



By the way, you must love this "war on terror", huh?


no one bit. i'm not quite a pacifist. as someone once said, pacifists are like vegans, i'm more of a vegetarian.



In Tragedy and Hope Quigly goes on and on about what it is you seem to want and he goes back again and again to describe the biggest obstacle of global government will be the tribal regions, i.e. Afganistan, Pakistan, and all the other "terror" hotbeds that will prove a problem to global government. It must be a dream come true for you to see those regions nuked to glass, huh? How dare they demand independence in the face of one world government! But I'm sure in your world just writing them big enough checks funded by taxing those Mexican billionaires will suddenly bring about peace and a certain complacence among those troublesome tribals. Soemtimes people rebel just for spite. Will there be enough global prisons for all of them? Enough UN troops to police them all? From the fundies in Afganistan to the fundies of Alabama to the hick trapper in Idaho who just wants to be left alone you're going to have to have quite a policing body to keep the peace in your magic
global order.


HORRID PRESUMPTION!



Have fun with that.


....yeah, i'll have fun with the little straw man you made



On second thought, I think it'll be more fun with you off of my ignore list. After all, as a conservative, it would be hypocritical to the core to censor anything or anyone.


wow, i love how you're assigning censorship to the opposite position, it shows the true hypocricy. both sides censor, it's not exclusive


let's see, this rests on several straw men and name calling, nice post



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i'm for globalism and the eradication of tribalism mentalities which harm humanity and cause wars


So, where was the presumption so horrid? This is exactly what you want. You said so yourself.



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i'm for globalism and the eradication of tribalism mentalities which harm humanity and cause wars


So, where was the presumption so horrid? This is exactly what you want. You said so yourself.


ok, you equated that with wanting a 1 world government...
wanting to have the world connected and wanting it to have a 1 world government are two different things. wanting people to get rid of the stupid idea that "this person isn't like me because of where they are from, what color their skin is, or their religion" isn't the same as wanting to have everyone controlled by some seedy institution.

that's where the presumption is

though the concept of one world with no government would be quite appealing for a world in which we have 100% literacy and greater levels of education



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


[snip]

4th largest group in the world? HA.




Christians 33.03% (of which Roman Catholics 17.33%, Protestants 5.8%, Orthodox 3.42%, Anglicans 1.23%), Muslims 20.12%, Hindus 13.34%, Buddhists 5.89%, Sikhs 0.39%, Jews 0.23%, other religions 12.61%, non-religious 12.03%, atheists 2.36% (2004 est.)


7th-6th place. In the words of "The Price is Right": Whaaaamp Whoooomp


[snip]

It is very funny how you say homosexuals should have rights, but always curse out anyone with faith. You know what the irony in this is? many of the homosexuals will be forced into Muslim faith if they take over, yet they want the equality of all, even those who would stone them to death.

And Globalism is a death trap, as it kills individualism and the thought of self purpose, turning you into a "world Village" member. NWO [snip]

[edit on 10-10-2007 by Gorman91]

[edit on 10-10-2007 by Gorman91]

Mod Edit: Removed unnecessary content in violation of Terms and Conditions. Please review this link:
Courtesy Is Mandatory

[edit on 10/11/07/11 by junglejake]



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 05:08 PM
link   
I think the OP is using the definition of conservatism found in the dictionary:

"the disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change"

His point is that anything that is opposed by conservatives in 2007 was once put forward by liberals in 1957. Get it?

What the OP forgets, though, is that we're all along a bell curve. There are very few people who are 100% conservative or 100% liberal (neo-cons are another story entirely).



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by TexasT
 


indeed. Most are Christian universalists.

[edit on 10-10-2007 by Gorman91]



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


He is a troll. Once you prove him wrong, he leaves the thread. Never got back to me on communism being the same exact thing as bought popes.


revive the thread, post a link to it in a u2u, i'll be there.
stop the name calling



4th largest group in the world? HA.




Christians 33.03% (of which Roman Catholics 17.33%, Protestants 5.8%, Orthodox 3.42%, Anglicans 1.23%), Muslims 20.12%, Hindus 13.34%, Buddhists 5.89%, Sikhs 0.39%, Jews 0.23%, other religions 12.61%, non-religious 12.03%, atheists 2.36% (2004 est.)


7th-6th place. In the words of "The Price is Right": Whaaaamp Whoooomp



...it doesn't count when you reorder them

let's break it down by size

christians
muslims
hindus
non-religious + atheists... cause, ya know, they're kind of the same group. it's like catholic and protestant being lumped together.



Troll, Liar, Hypocrite. things that describe you.


point out where i lied... just cause you can distort some figures doesn't mean i'm a liar
troll? show me where i've trolled?
hypocrite? more name calling that you can't back up



It is very funny how you say homosexuals should have rights, but always curse out anyone with faith.


...um, my two closest friends are devout christians, one is training to be a youth minister. i have no problem with people i disagree with FAITH.



You know what the irony in this is? many of the homosexuals will be forced into Muslim faith if they take over, yet they want the equality of all, even those who would stone them to death.


the muslims taking over? huh? last time i checked maybe 1% of the muslim population was militant...



And Globalism is a death trap, as it kills individualism and the thought of self purpose, turning you into a "world Village" member.


...no, it doesn't.



NWO


again, not NWO, if anything i support practical anarchy...



Go to hell.


how about this, come up with an argument that shows how 1% having more wealth that 50% of the population is moral in some way
if you can't, come up with a better way to solve it



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

how about this, come up with an argument that shows how 1% having more wealth that 50% of the population is moral in some way
if you can't, come up with a better way to solve it


Why dont you come up with an argument otherwise?
Whats so "immoral" about success?

That immoral bastard Bill Gate working his ass off in his garage soldering day and night and writing code in his sleep. What a bastard he is.

Damn those pharmaceutical companies for increasing the survivability of cancers and disease beyond anyones expectations.

How about you beloved "education and literacy"? Damn those universities and their multi-billion dollar endowments and millionaire administration! Damn them to hell!

What's with your education and literacy infatuation anyway? Like a learned man never lead a genocidal campaign? Like the literate don't still pray to an invisible god or believe the only way to cure AIDS is to rape a virgin?

Literacy may not be relative, you can either read and write or you cannot, but education certainly is. Then what people chose to do with their education or how to interpret their education is a wild card unto itself.

It just sounds to me like you want everyone to think the way you want them to. Act the way you want them to. Interpret the world around them the way you want them to.

That's real healthy.

By how far derailed this thread has become from your original post, only then to be altered to refer to "social conservatives," which when the change has been made makes even less sense, I can tell you have an awful lot of unorganized junk slamming into a colorful mix of fantastic ideals and conceited paranoia in your head. Separate it out with quotes and call it "name-calling." Like I don't know that's what I'm doing? How far back? Which previous system do you imagine "social conservatives" want to return to? Liberals brought about kings and landowners is that it? So feudalism is your fault? Or do you just want to back to the 20's or 30's America? Were the conservatives trying to ban the wheel before it led to an increase in cave-teen pregnancies? Which came first? The conservative or the liberal? Lets make a handy list of each thing each one can be blamed for for the past 30,000 years or so so you can point on a time-line to which system it is exactly you expect Bob Dole to take us back to.



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere



That immoral bastard Bill Gate working his ass off in his garage soldering day and night and writing code in his sleep. What a bastard he is.


Right, so we know why the code is bull now. Further, his money is made by monopolistic behaviour which is very anti competitive, though Bush can be bought (as we oil know). Conservatism splits into many areas, you watch some Conservatives discuss conservatism over 4 hours of beer, its like football talk.

Conservatism = Tradition = Opportunity = Competition = Mutual Self Defence = Lots of jobs = Marriage = Single Mums = Society (This is a modern British new tradition) = HealthCare (another new one) = Environment (yup, new again) = anything you want it to be really, like Liberalism.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join