What is a Conservative

Interesting question

from JoeUser Forums

Simply put what is a conservitive?.
End of quote

Conservative or Republican?

Conservatives believe in limited goverment.  We dont like a 'nanny state'.  We want to decide for ourselves. We do believe that the UN is a joke, not due to a misconception, but due to historical perspective.  They just have not done anything to indicate they believe or support their charter.

We believe in Charity for the misfortunate, but that it should be a helping hand, not a hand out.  We belive that life is not fair.  But people can be fair and charitable.  So if you are making a million, and your neighbor is not, that is not bad.  it is life.  But we can and do offer a helping hand.

We believe that our earnings are ours, and our charitible contributions are also ours.  To give to those we see as the needy, and not the greedy.  Does that make us bad?

We are not judgemental.  So you can decide the last question.  And in the final analysis,. we are not going to debate you .  Because your definitions of needy and greedy is your own subjective opinion, as is ours.  So you can support yours, and we can support ours.

We also believe that all people are equal, but life is not equal., So while I am not billl Gates, that does not mean I was deprived.  It just means I made different decisions.

We also do not condemn progress just because it is not to the liking of some tree huggers.  We love the environment, but we do not subvert humanity for it.

We understand that the Sun, and the earth have more impact on global cooling than this feeble thing called man can ever have.  yet we know we can pollute it and we strive to make sure we dont.

We are the socialist and Communist worst nightmare, and best hope.  We care, but in the end, more than caring, we do.  We dont hug trees, we harvest them, and replace them.  So that there are more trees today than when our ancestors set foot on this continent. (Can the socialist of Europe say that?).

We are your worst nightmare for one simple reason.  We are right.  And you just care, but dont know.

I know this is going to get flames., but in the end, it will make no difference.  For Lliberals care, but do nothing.  Conservatives care and do.  Not always the best, but always to make a change.

THAT is the difference.

politics
10,346 views 35 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
From DNCdude:
Thank you! Coming from a strong democratic and liberal family its nice to see a side of the conservitives that does not including choice words, put downs, or liberal agendas. However this is not to say I agree with every thing you say particularly that liberals care but do nothing. My mother is a strong well known liberal democrat in our local community who has raised money for charities benefiting the poor, and research for diseases. To a higher more widely known stage Bill Clinton(what kind of democrat wouldn't bring him up?) in 1993 recognized the threat of crime and signed into law a document though flawed that helped bring crime to an all time low. He saw the threat of Aids and Altzeimers, diseases that were neglected much of their funding by previous administrations. As to your remark "We do believe that the UN is a joke, not due to a misconception, but due to historical perspective." I say amen to that however for the party that cares and does why does President Bush brush it aside instead of getting more involved to help make a new more purposeful United Nations that has a history of uniting the world and ending genocide and other acts of evil. Oh and by the way you aren't my worst nightmare. In fact no where near it. Thank you again!

With gratitude,
DNCdude
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #1 By: DNCdude - 11/27/2004 5:23:14 PM
From DNCdude:
Thank you! Coming from a strong democratic and liberal family its nice to see a side of the conservitives that does not including choice words, put downs, or liberal agendas. However this is not to say I agree with every thing you say particularly that liberals care but do nothing. My mother is a strong well known liberal democrat in our local community who has raised money for charities benefiting the poor, and research for diseases. To a higher more widely known stage Bill Clinton(what kind of democrat wouldn't bring him up?) in 1993 recognized the threat of crime and signed into law a document though flawed that helped bring crime to an all time low.


Please don't tell me your refering to the AWB?
Fences - Organize your desktop icons today!
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top
Please don't tell me your refering to the AWB?


If you mean assault weapons ban yes, yes I am, with all respect to those who own guns.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

From DNCdude:
Thank you! Coming from a strong democratic and liberal family its nice to see a side of the conservitives that does not including choice words, put downs, or liberal agendas. However this is not to say I agree with every thing you say particularly that liberals care but do nothing. My mother is a strong well known liberal democrat in our local community who has raised money for charities benefiting the poor, and research for diseases. To a higher more widely known stage Bill Clinton(what kind of democrat wouldn't bring him up?) in 1993 recognized the threat of crime and signed into law a document though flawed that helped bring crime to an all time low. He saw the threat of Aids and Altzeimers, diseases that were neglected much of their funding by previous administrations. As to your remark "We do believe that the UN is a joke, not due to a misconception, but due to historical perspective." I say amen to that however for the party that cares and does why does President Bush brush it aside instead of getting more involved to help make a new more purposeful United Nations that has a history of uniting the world and ending genocide and other acts of evil. Oh and by the way you aren't my worst nightmare. In fact no where near it. Thank you again!

Geez DNC dude!  Where do I begin?

Ok, I wont.  Cause I dont disagree with you!  Or your mother!  In fact, your mother and I probably are the same side of the coin.  But we just call ourselves something differnt.

I dont give to all charities, as I give to my main ones.  We have our purposes, and we need to support them.  That is what it is all about.

In the end, we just disagree on how to do it.  But your mother and I agree on that.  Dont worry.  I doubt she will be a conservative, but we willl take care of our all. And I would love to meet her!

Seems we have a lot in common!

Thank you!

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: DNCdudePosted: Saturday, November 27, 2004
Please don't tell me your refering to the AWB?


If you mean assault weapons ban yes, yes I am, with all respect to those who own guns.

I think he was talking about the Average White Band.

But maybe not......

 

As for the other, That  is not a conservative issue.  It IS a law enforcement  issue and transcends conservative and liberal issuesbased upon definitions.

Reply #6 from PolMach Forums Top
Geez DNC dude! Where do I begin?
Ok, I wont. Cause I dont agree with you!


What don't you agree with I was under the impression some things though they displease some people are fact.
As for the other, That is not a conservative issue. It IS a law enforcement issue and transcends conservative and liberal issuesbased upon definitions.


Agreed it isn't aconservative issue but it is an issue conservatives have taken a place on and deserves recognition.
Reply #7 from PolMach Forums Top
Geez DNC dude! Where do I begin?
Ok, I wont. Cause I dont agree with you!


DNC, I fat fingered that. I corrected it. Read my corrected response and then we can discuss. Sorry about that!. Just wish I did not have the stupiid pinched nerves (and yea, that is a great excuse, but this time it is true).
Reply #8 from PolMach Forums Top
Reply #6 By: Citizen DNCdude - 11/27/2004 6:21:47 PM
Geez DNC dude! Where do I begin?
Ok, I wont. Cause I dont agree with you!


What don't you agree with I was under the impression some things though they displease some people are fact.As for the other, That is not a conservative issue. It IS a law enforcement issue and transcends conservative and liberal issuesbased upon definitions.


Agreed it isn't aconservative issue but it is an issue conservatives have taken a place on and deserves recognition.


Mea Culpa! See the previous! A big oops! I did fix it. Sorry about that!
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

For Lliberals care, but do nothing. Conservatives care and do.


It's wonderful to have goals (liberal).  It's even better to have achieveable goals (conservative).

Reply #10 from PolMach Forums Top
It's wonderful to have goals (liberal). It's even better to have achieveable goals (conservative).


Just curious but who are you to decide what is achievable and what is not. Personally your input is invalid dharmagrl.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #3 By: DNCdude - 11/27/2004 5:36:39 PM
Please don't tell me your refering to the AWB?


If you mean assault weapons ban yes, yes I am, with all respect to those who own guns.


Sorry but the AWB did "absolutely" nothing and that comes from both sides of the fence Dem & Rep alike. It didn't ban anything. All it did was stop them from mfg. more of the same. It didn't touch those that were already out there. And in actuality It didn't even stop the mfg of assualt weapons . It just forced the mfg's to make minor changes to the firearms so they could continue making them. The AWB was based on looks alone. Sen Feinstein gave her people a catalog of firearms and told them to pick the scariest ones. And *that's* what you precious AWB is based on.

blithering idiots
The pathetic joke known as the 1994 ban on "Assault Weapons" is set to expire at midnight tonight, and the bill appears to be headed for a timely death. It was never anything but a joke, hustled by Diane Feinstein, who wouldn't know an "assault weapon" from a barking dog. That was one pussified law.

Some people remain pussified

Over the last decade, buying an assault weapon hasn't been as easy as it once was. For that you can credit Congress, which decided in 1994 that rapid-fire killing machines have no proper place in American life. Apparently that conclusion has been renounced, for assault weapons are even now rushing back into gun shops. Today marks the expiration of the ban -- and the coming of a great shopping opportunity for gunsters.
No, "assault weapons" ARE NOT rushing back into gun shops. It's still illegal to own a fully-automatic weapon, which is what a genuine assault weapon is. All lifting the ban will do is allow people to by scary-looking guns that made the pussified piss their pants when they see one, even though the gun is no more lethal or murderous than a host of other guns that remained legal.

Never mind that most Americans strongly backed the ban.
Most Americans also supported slavery and opposed desegregation of public schools, too. Most Americans can be really full of shit sometimes. That's why we live in a REPUBLIC instead of a pure democracy.

This raises an old question: Given the broad support it enjoyed, how could the ban possibly fizzle? Give credit to America's gunmakers and their shills at the National Rifle Association, who rely on subtle threats, high-profile lobbying and shrewdly targeted donations to avert interference with unfettered gun sales. There's also the gun lobby's duping claim that the assault-weapons ban has hurt hunters and sport-shooters: The ban focused only a small class (many say too small) of shoot-from-the-hip military weapons; semiautomatic hunting rifles and pistols stayed on the market.
Oh, gag me. We don't have "unfettered gun sales." That's nothing but a fucking lie. This entire bill was designed to do one thing, and one thing only: begin the erosion of the Second Amendment and eventually lead to a total ban on firearms in this country. Anybody who thinks anydifferently is either a liar or a dupe.

No, the assault-weapons ban hasn't crippled gun enthusiasts. What it has done is dampen the use of assault guns in crimes and help spur the overall decline in gun deaths in recent years. This is why police departments across the country have long backed the assault-weapons ban -- and lament its expiration.
More pure horseshit. The one thing that REALLY helped reduce gun deaths over the years is locking up the criminal fucks who commit the crimes. And most OF THOSE criminal fucks didn't use assault weapons when they killed somebody.

I look at this crap and I go back to what Benjamin Franklin once said: "If you're willing to give up your freedom for a false sense of security, you deserve neither freedom nor security."
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
For Lliberals care, but do nothing. Conservatives care and do.


This is a great post, DrGuy, but I find this statement (above) far too broad, and insulting, actually.
Reply #13 from PolMach Forums Top
drmiller I did say in my original message that the ban was flawed. Wether it was a factor in the decrease in crime in the ninieties I will leave up to you. However of the facts I have I say it helped.

Sincerely,
DNCdude

P.S. Long Live Bill Clinton!
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

Just curious but who are you to decide what is achievable and what is not. Personally your input is invalid dharmagrl.


I could give a rat's ass what you think is invalid or not.  I wasn't even talking to you.  Take your 'invalid' and shove it up your ass.  Sideways.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Take your 'invalid' and shove it up your ass. Sideways.


Sounds painful.

For Liberals care, but do nothing. Conservatives care and do.


This is such pure bullshit I can't just let it stand. Who do you think entertains you? Who wrote the great works of philosophy that underpin your ideals? Who creates the artworks and the music that define generations? Who fought to end the poorhouses of the 19th century? Who fought for women's liberation and the end of slavery?

It's rare that you can attribute any of the above directly to conservatives, but it's quite common to be able to make the links to liberals. Liberals may not make as much money and 'product' (although that is highly debatable as well) but they do contribute just as much as conservatives to society.
Reply #16 from PolMach Forums Top
I could give a rat's ass what you think is invalid or not. I wasn't even talking to you. Take your 'invalid' and shove it up your ass. Sideways.


Compassionate certainly doesn't describe you now does it?

With interest to see if you have a valid point,
DNCdude

P.S. What ever on Earth do you mean by sideways?
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

Compassionate certainly doesn't describe you now does it?


Really?  Perhaps you should read my blog before you make assumptions.


Unless I'm mistaken, the title of this article is 'what is a conservative'.  My statement was an attempt to describe what 'conservative' means to me.  I was addressing Dr Guy, the author of this article, not you.


Is that valid enough for you?


 

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Liberals can and do definitely contribute realistically to the nation. I don't think it matters as much whether or not somebody is conservative or liberal as it does whether people are able to understand that the ends does not justify the means and the means does not justify the ends.

This is such pure bullshit I can't just let it stand. Who do you think entertains you? Who wrote the great works of philosophy that underpin your ideals? Who creates the artworks and the music that define generations? Who fought to end the poorhouses of the 19th century? Who fought for women's liberation and the end of slavery?

It's rare that you can attribute any of the above directly to conservatives, but it's quite common to be able to make the links to liberals. Liberals may not make as much money and 'product' (although that is highly debatable as well) but they do contribute just as much as conservatives to society.


Many artists are liberal, but they all aren't. And it's true that liberals have contributed to society, and they always will, but one can't justify all liberal actions by the actions of liberals in the past, because all liberal fights both past and present aren't positive (i.e. NAMBLA, which is arguably more liberal than those who oppose them).
Reply #19 from PolMach Forums Top
To dharmagrl,
I am sorry. I should have paid more attention to the topic at hand. However the remarks I made in a hidden way represent my views on what being a conservitive is. And just so you know I did read your blog. And I beseach of you too forgive my pursuance of validation. I had taken offense from your remark and wanted a vent however I believe I did so innapropriatly.

Conservatisism to me isn't quite what most here think of it I admit I have seen near only one half of it. The snarling half bitter at what ever disagrees. To some extent I would say the 9th reply is what I see of concervitism. May hap the writer of that certain reply find a way less demeaning to voice their veiw of conservatism.

Sincerly and Appologeticcally,
DNCdude
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

DNCdude...apology accepted and I would like to offer mine in return.  I shouldn't have said what I did....


 


Conservatisism to me isn't quite what most here think of it


So, tell us what is.....

Reply #21 from PolMach Forums Top
Conservitism from a Liberal Perspective
(Please notify me if my wordchoice offends you and that the purpose of this input is to give my side of the story not to to be offensive.)
When I look at the aspects of concervitism I see three parties
-Republican/Reagan Democrat Politicians
-Republican citizens
-A mixture

As for citizens I truly believe they, though they may not admit are just as liberal as a liberal is conservitive. In that I mean many many qualities that are considered concervitive are considered liberal as well.



We believe in Charity for the misfortunate, but that it should be a helping hand, not a hand out. We belive that life is not fair. But people can be fair and charitable. So if you are making a million, and your neighbor is not, that is not bad. it is life. But we can and do offer a helping hand.


This for instance is true in both perspectives if only a liberal applies it in his life more liberaly and a concervitive more to a concerved degree.
Concervitism to me though is represent more through the elected leadership.
Tom Delay for example, if indicted on felon charges will still be allowed to lead the party in the house, what is wrong with that? He is not just a Texas representative he is an American representative and his actions along with any other political leader are what tells the world who we are. Although by no means should any country innfluence us on how we act except in stating facts. Do we really want our neighbors to see a country governed of criminals or of just men looking to make the case of their veiws heard? To move up to senate level what do I see there? That is where I see the worst aspects of concervitism, the snarling bitter half. I find the conservtive leaders their including Bill Frist, John McCain, and Harry Reid to be among the most unreputable in hte entire of U.S. leadership. Yes call me names and lol but I do to believe the face of the concervative party arrogant. I find that anything they see as unfit is not worthy of consideration but only of insult. That certain groups can find solice while others find a secluded lonely feeling. Though this is only the tip of teh ice berg on wrongs and rights that is all I will say.

Sincerely,
DNCdude

P.S. dharmagirl appology accepted!
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
I hope that will help clarify my previous statements in this blog. I have turned this into an article if anyone wishes to argue or add support to my statements.

Sincerely,
DNCdude
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

Just curious but who are you to decide what is achievable and what is not. Personally your input is invalid dharmagrl.


How about results?  Let them decide.  Is not that objecctive?

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #13 By: DNCdude - 11/27/2004 8:09:06 PM
drmiller I did say in my original message that the ban was flawed. Wether it was a factor in the decrease in crime in the ninieties I will leave up to you. However of the facts I have I say it helped.

Sincerely,
DNCdude

P.S. Long Live Bill Clinton!


You can think that if you want, but I can show you otherwise.


The NRA wants to put illegal military style rapid-fire assault weapons, including AK-47s and Uzis, back on our streets. Tell President Bush no way is this going to happen. The Assault Weapons Ban must be renewed. In this day and age, why would anyone want to put these killing machines back on our streets?

Tell President Bush and Congress that Americans want sane gun laws.
Moore is trying to be tricky here. Notice he doesn’t say “Automatic” weapons, rather, “rapid- fire”. Why the distinction? Because the term “military-style” conjures up an image of a rifle that fires in “rock and roll” mode , ergo, pull the trigger, empty the magazine with one squeeze.
However, these type weapons have been illegal since before WWII. The “rapid -fire” weapons Moore is referring to are semi- automatic weapons, one squeeze of the trigger, one round through the barrel, albeit there is no need to re-cock the weapon, or re-charge the chamber by operating the bolt. The Assault weapons ban limits the type of legal weapons SIMPLY BY HOW THEY APPEAR ,not function. So I know this to be a silly law, but still, I’m a nosey guy, so I nosed my way over to the FBI.The FBI Stats

Considering myself a sane person , who likes sane laws, I decided to quickly look into the matter, as time is drawing near for the law to expire, and if I needed to follow Moore’s advice with a call to my Senator, I’d better do it pronto. I had one simple question. Are rifles a greater risk to Americans than other weapons? After all, Moore calls them “killing machines”. Sounds pretty serious to me.

Here’s what I found about how these rifles are affecting us today.


In 2002 ( the last full year available) 480 people were murdered with rifles while 929 people were killed with bare hands.

In 2001, 389 people were murdered with rifles while 924 people were killed with bare hands.

In 2000, 396 people were murdered with rifles while 892 people were killed with bare hands.

It might be interesting to know also, that in the years 2000,2001,2002, 7237 people were beaten to death with blunt objects, ( hammers, etc.) or stabbed or sliced to death with knives.



NEW YORKERS are at least four times as likely to be punched to death than to be killed with an assault-style rifle, unpublished state crime statistics show.

The eye-opening figures — obtained by The Post from the state Division of Criminal Justice Services — reveal that New Yorkers are also at least twice as likely to be clubbed to death than shot dead by an attacker wielding one of the semi-automatic rifles previously covered by a federal government ban that expired last week.

The most recent statewide statistics — murder-by-weapon-type figures from 2002 — also show that New Yorkers are at least five times as likely to be stabbed to death with a knife than they are to be shot with an assault rifle.

Of 893 murders committed two years ago, just 22 — or slightly over 2 percent — were carried out using some form of rifle, including assault-rifles, the figures show.

The CDC is unable to show one way or the other if the AWB had any effect.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

This is a great post, DrGuy, but I find this statement (above) far too broad, and insulting, actually.


 


Yes and it is so stereotypical.  I was just trying  to show a point.   You are right,  So let us agree to do so, and not feel?