Why would anyone be a conservative?

[naglfari]

seems like, they're so wrong about literally every single thing they believe in, that you'd have to be trying to be dumb to be a conservative. It makes no sense to me

[Gwen]

First of all, every conservative doesn’t have exactly the same beliefs. Moreover, even when we do agree on certain positions, we may have different motives or reasoning behind our answers. So keep in mind that reasonable and intelligent conservatives may disagree with some of the things I’ve said below.

What do conservatives believe? As a general rule, conservatives favor a smaller, weaker, Federal government, less taxes, free trade, a strong defense, a color blind society, and traditional American values.

Source: http://www.rightwingnews.com/column-2/answering-20-frequently-asked-questions-about-conservatism-2/

It's really start forward and should give you a run down on why people are Conservative and why people aren't. In the end it comes down to preference

[Harry Smith]

The way I see it conservatives tend to flourish during and after a country's boom, when people are getting richer and they want to stay that way. Like in 1950's with IKE, everything seemed to be going well with America, then the Kennedy's came along and in turn so did the rise of civil right's meaning that the majority of american's wanted a change. In my view the Republicans want an America based on the 1950's

[Taryn98]

Grayregrets quoted it correct. We want low taxes, limited government, strong defense. I don't want the governement to provide anything for me except national defense. I don't want social security/medicare/obamacare/welfare/food stamps or anything of the sort. I want to take care of myself and my family. And I don't want to support other people through those programs.

Social issues like gay marriage, guns, abortion shouldn't even be federal issues. The federal government has no business telling individuals whether or not they can own guns, have abortions, or who they can marry. They should just stay out of it and leave people alone.

I would say it's dumb to be a liberal. Why do you want the government to provide everything for everyone, to take from some people and give to another, to regulate what companies can and can't do and how you live your life? Can't you take responsibility for yourself?

The great thing about America is that you have the freedom to try and succeed and the freedom to fail or the freedom to do nothing. But if you do nothing or fail, nobody owes you anything because of it.

I just want to be left alone to make my own choices and be responsible and accountable for them 100% myself!

[Reanne]

seems like, they're so wrong about literally every single thing they believe in, that you'd have to be trying to be dumb to be a conservative. It makes no sense to me

People generally have beliefs one way or another. If you think the conservatives don't have the right policies for you then you wouldn't vote for them.

Generally conservative governments try to cut debt which can put the squeeze on things, but down the track people are better off and the country is better off not having as big debt. The down side is services may drop, Health, Education, Government jobs...etc but these are the things that happen.

Socialist type governments usually put up taxes to pay for things, when they don't know how to fix something they put up a tax to try and fix it rather than finding a better solution or encouraging by tax incentives.

It all comes down to what you follow and if their policies are more in your way of thinking.

In all honesty, it's not a bad thing changing from one to another as it's probably a better balance.

[Horatio Nelson]

Grayregrets quoted it correct. We want low taxes, limited government, strong defense. I don't want the governement to provide anything for me except national defense. I don't want social security/medicare/obamacare/welfare/food stamps or anything of the sort. I want to take care of myself and my family. And I don't want to support other people through those programs.

Social issues like gay marriage, guns, abortion shouldn't even be federal issues. The federal government has no business telling individuals whether or not they can own guns, have abortions, or who they can marry. They should just stay out of it and leave people alone.

I would say it's dumb to be a liberal. Why do you want the government to provide everything for everyone, to take from some people and give to another, to regulate what companies can and can't do and how you live your life? Can't you take responsibility for yourself?

The great thing about America is that you have the freedom to try and succeed and the freedom to fail or the freedom to do nothing. But if you do nothing or fail, nobody owes you anything because of it.

I just want to be left alone to make my own choices and be responsible and accountable for them 100% myself!

Amen to that.

[Cicero]

The way I see it conservatives tend to flourish during and after a country's boom, when people are getting richer and they want to stay that way. Like in 1950's with IKE, everything seemed to be going well with America, then the Kennedy's came along and in turn so did the rise of civil right's meaning that the majority of american's wanted a change. In my view the Republicans want an America based on the 1950's
Not really. That's just me. I find it interesting you say such statements about republicans yet you live in the UK. Because the statements you say are untrue, not everyone is like that. It's almost like you think just because you read a few articles or watch a few American videos, you know what it's like living in America or you know what it's like having Obama as a president. No matter how much you read, you'll never know what it's truly like unless you live here yourself.
Grayregrets quoted it correct. We want low taxes, limited government, strong defense. I don't want the governement to provide anything for me except national defense. I don't want social security/medicare/obamacare/welfare/food stamps or anything of the sort. I want to take care of myself and my family. And I don't want to support other people through those programs.

Social issues like gay marriage, guns, abortion shouldn't even be federal issues. The federal government has no business telling individuals whether or not they can own guns, have abortions, or who they can marry. They should just stay out of it and leave people alone.

I would say it's dumb to be a liberal. Why do you want the government to provide everything for everyone, to take from some people and give to another, to regulate what companies can and can't do and how you live your life? Can't you take responsibility for yourself?

The great thing about America is that you have the freedom to try and succeed and the freedom to fail or the freedom to do nothing. But if you do nothing or fail, nobody owes you anything because of it.

I just want to be left alone to make my own choices and be responsible and accountable for them 100% myself!

Represent! :bigsmile:


Democrats and liberals tend to be the hippies and say "Hey man, why don't you spread that money you made! Lets all be fair and equal! Spread the wealth man, spread the wealth :hippy:" whereas republicans and conservatives are like "Why should I spread the money my family/I worked so hard for? Get a job and get it yourself! I worked for it/my family worked for it, so you should too."


Liberals tend to be lower-middle class, while republicans tend to be middle-upper class. I'm not saying that lower class people aren't republican, or upper class people aren't democrat. But that's how it typically is.

Liberals think its unfair when someone else is rich while they're suffering or are in hardships so they want that rich persons money. Republicans feel that if they want to give to charity, it should be their decision, not the governments. And that's basically what they're doing when they're being forced to pay more. Obama says, hey let's take this persons money and give it to those not as fortunate. Liberals think "They have so much money, they won't miss it if we increase the taxes to help those struggling". But republicans think "I don't want to be forced to give to charity (which is what it basically is because those in welfare get more money), I worked hard for it. Is not my fault they have misfortune, so why punish me for their doing?"

Republicans tend to be hardworking businessmen who understand the value of money.


seems like, they're so wrong about literally every single thing they believe in, that you'd have to be trying to be dumb to be a conservative. It makes no sense to me
Actually. Most republicans have higher degrees than liberals.

[Professional Russian]

Grayregrets quoted it correct. We want low taxes, limited government, strong defense. I don't want the governement to provide anything for me except national defense. I don't want social security/medicare/obamacare/welfare/food stamps or anything of the sort. I want to take care of myself and my family. And I don't want to support other people through those programs.

Social issues like gay marriage, guns, abortion shouldn't even be federal issues. The federal government has no business telling individuals whether or not they can own guns, have abortions, or who they can marry. They should just stay out of it and leave people alone.

I would say it's dumb to be a liberal. Why do you want the government to provide everything for everyone, to take from some people and give to another, to regulate what companies can and can't do and how you live your life? Can't you take responsibility for yourself?

The great thing about America is that you have the freedom to try and succeed and the freedom to fail or the freedom to do nothing. But if you do nothing or fail, nobody owes you anything because of it.

I just want to be left alone to make my own choices and be responsible and accountable for them 100% myself!

This the best post ever posted on the forums. I agree with every word.

As said above. If I work for my.money you really think I want to give to lazy people? Fuck that. Also with obamacare has anyone noticed that Obama is exempt from obamacare? Anyways that's not the point. The point is liberals want us to give our money away to people that don't deserve. Welfare was a good idea with good intentions. If it worked the way it was supposed to I would.mind paying.but its turned to lazy people.milking.off the government

[Gigablue]

Grayregrets quoted it correct. We want low taxes, limited government, strong defense. I don't want the government to provide anything for me except national defense. I don't want social security/medicare/obamacare/welfare/food stamps or anything of the sort. I want to take care of myself and my family. And I don't want to support other people through those programs.

Why shouldn't the government help the less fortunate with things like health care, employment insurance, welfare, etc? It's bad for everyone if people have to live in poverty, and everyone is better off it we help them get out of it.

Wouldn't you want support from others if you ended up in a bad situation, especially one which was in no way your fault. If everyone helps each other out, life becomes much easier.

Social issues like gay marriage, guns, abortion shouldn't even be federal issues. The federal government has no business telling individuals whether or not they can own guns, have abortions, or who they can marry. They should just stay out of it and leave people alone.

The government's job is to ensure equal rights for everyone. Gay marriage and abortion are issues of equality, and thus the government should have a say. Guns have to do with the right to life and safety of person, and so the government should regulate them.

Government regulation doesn't mean a lack of freedom. The government's job is to ensure freedom and equality for everyone. They shouldn't control every single aspect of life, but they should always be there to ensure human rights.

I would say it's dumb to be a liberal. Why do you want the government to provide everything for everyone, to take from some people and give to another, to regulate what companies can and can't do and how you live your life? Can't you take responsibility for yourself?

Why shouldn't the government help to provide for people who can't, for whatever reason, provide for themselves? What are we supposed to do, let them continue to suffer? What's wrong with taking a bit from the rich to help the poor?

Governments need to regulate companies, since the companies don't care about the people. They only care about profit. Government regulations help maintain equality and ensure the companies treat the people properly.

The great thing about America is that you have the freedom to try and succeed and the freedom to fail or the freedom to do nothing. But if you do nothing or fail, nobody owes you anything because of it.

Some people succeed, and good for them, they have earned their success. Some people fail, but as long as they are willing to try again, society should help them, because once they succeed, they will help society.

Also, some people end up in bad circumstances due to bad luck. Should we just abandon them? That won't benefit anyone. By helping those who need it, we make sure they can help us if we ever need it.

[Cicero]

Why shouldn't the government help the less fortunate with things like health care, employment insurance, welfare, etc? It's bad for everyone if people have to live in poverty, and everyone is better off it we help them get out of it.

Wouldn't you want support from others if you ended up in a bad situation, especially one which was in no way your fault. If everyone helps each other out, life becomes much easier.



The government's job is to ensure equal rights for everyone. Gay marriage and abortion are issues of equality, and thus the government should have a say. Guns have to do with the right to life and safety of person, and so the government should regulate them.

Government regulation doesn't mean a lack of freedom. The government's job is to ensure freedom and equality for everyone. They shouldn't control every single aspect of life, but they should always be there to ensure human rights.



Why shouldn't the government help to provide for people who can't, for whatever reason, provide for themselves? What are we supposed to do, let them continue to suffer? What's wrong with taking a bit from the rich to help the poor?

Governments need to regulate companies, since the companies don't care about the people. They only care about profit. Government regulations help maintain equality and ensure the companies treat the people properly.



Some people succeed, and good for them, they have earned their success. Some people fail, but as long as they are willing to try again, society should help them, because once they succeed, they will help society.

Also, some people end up in bad circumstances due to bad luck. Should we just abandon them? That won't benefit anyone. By helping those who need it, we make sure they can help us if we ever need it.

If the wealthy want to give to charity, that should be their decision. Not tha governments. The rich should have the same taxes as the rich, 10-20%. The rich shouldn't have 30% taxes while everyone else has 10%-20% taxes just because they have a bit more money to spare. They are rich cause they're smart with their money and they know how to make $1000 into $2000+. That's basically punishing them for being successful, it's like saying "Oh, you worked hard to become rich? Well, lets just give your hard earned money to some hobo. Who cares if you worked hard for your lifestyle"


If a wealthy person pays more in taxes to help those less fortunate, that won't make life better for everyone. It will just make it better for that family getting the money. The only thing the rich person is getting out of it is having less money. That's not a benefit at all.

[LouBerry]

Grayregrets quoted it correct. We want low taxes, limited government, strong defense. I don't want the governement to provide anything for me except national defense. I don't want social security/medicare/obamacare/welfare/food stamps or anything of the sort. I want to take care of myself and my family. And I don't want to support other people through those programs.

Social issues like gay marriage, guns, abortion shouldn't even be federal issues. The federal government has no business telling individuals whether or not they can own guns, have abortions, or who they can marry. They should just stay out of it and leave people alone.

I would say it's dumb to be a liberal. Why do you want the government to provide everything for everyone, to take from some people and give to another, to regulate what companies can and can't do and how you live your life? Can't you take responsibility for yourself?

The great thing about America is that you have the freedom to try and succeed and the freedom to fail or the freedom to do nothing. But if you do nothing or fail, nobody owes you anything because of it.

I just want to be left alone to make my own choices and be responsible and accountable for them 100% myself!

Because this.

[Taryn98]

If the wealthy want to give to charity, that should be their decision. Not tha governments. The rich should have the same taxes as the rich, 10-20%. The rich shouldn't have 30% taxes while everyone else has 10%-20% taxes just because they have a bit more money to spare. They are rich cause they're smart with their money and they know how to make $1000 into $2000+. That's basically punishing them for being successful, it's like saying "Oh, you worked hard to become rich? Well, lets just give your hard earned money to some hobo. Who cares if you worked hard for your lifestyle"

This is exactly correct. I have no problem helping people by volunteering time or money through charity. BUT it should be my choice on how much I give and who gets to receive it. It should NOT be TAKEN from me and distributed to whoever the government determines deserves it.

The government cannot make better decisions regarding the life of my family and I or our money/time/beliefs.

[Gigablue]

If the wealthy want to give to charity, that should be their decision. Not tha governments. The rich should have the same taxes as the rich, 10-20%. The rich shouldn't have 30% taxes while everyone else has 10%-20% taxes just because they have a bit more money to spare. They are rich cause they're smart with their money and they know how to make $1000 into $2000+. That's basically punishing them for being successful, it's like saying "Oh, you worked hard to become rich? Well, lets just give your hard earned money to some hobo. Who cares if you worked hard for your lifestyle"

If a wealthy person pays more in taxes to help those less fortunate, that won't make life better for everyone. It will just make it better for that family getting the money. The only thing the rich person is getting out of it is having less money. That's not a benefit at all.

It's not punishing the rich, it's simply doing what's best for everyone. The rich will still be rich, they'll just have a bit less money. No one is suggesting taking away all of rich people's money.

Saying the rich should pay the same taxes as the poor means that there will be huge inequality in society. This isn't good for anyone. Societies with more equality have higher qualities of life, and are just generally better places to live in. To only care about the rich is very short sighted.

[Nellerin]

seems like, they're so wrong about literally every single thing they believe in, that you'd have to be trying to be dumb to be a conservative. It makes no sense to me

Conservatives have been good for decades. The current republican party of Tea Party people has ruined what used to be a good image.

Conservatives are not inherently bad. And each person should be judged on a case to case basis without wide assumptions being made against them.

[Cicero]

It's not punishing the rich, it's simply doing what's best for everyone. The rich will still be rich, they'll just have a bit less money. No one is suggesting taking away all of rich people's money.

Saying the rich should pay the same taxes as the poor means that there will be huge inequality in society. This isn't good for anyone. Societies with more equality have higher qualities of life, and are just generally better places to live in. To only care about the rich is very short sighted.

Great, well just tax them to death, that way, the wealthy who paid for the welfare, is on welfare themselves. Everyone should just get taxed 20% like Romney suggested. But nooooo. We have to be forced to give to charity

http://i.imgur.com/mED1l8Y.png
http://i.imgur.com/GJVSEWZ.png
http://i.imgur.com/j1uyc3w.png
http://i.imgur.com/uMe2RQ0.png
http://i.imgur.com/4lknSVQ.png

[Harry Smith]

Not really. That's just me. I find it interesting you say such statements about republicans yet you live in the UK. Because the statements you say are untrue, not everyone is like that. It's almost like you think just because you read a few articles or watch a few American videos, you know what it's like living in America or you know what it's like having Obama as a president. No matter how much you read, you'll never know what it's truly like unless you live here yourself.


Represent! :bigsmile:


Democrats and liberals tend to be the hippies and say "Hey man, why don't you spread that money you made! Lets all be fair and equal! Spread the wealth man, spread the wealth :hippy:" whereas republicans and conservatives are like "Why should I spread the money my family/I worked so hard for? Get a job and get it yourself! I worked for it/my family worked for it, so you should too."


Liberals tend to be lower-middle class, while republicans tend to be middle-upper class. I'm not saying that lower class people aren't republican, or upper class people aren't democrat. But that's how it typically is.

Liberals think its unfair when someone else is rich while they're suffering or are in hardships so they want that rich persons money. Republicans feel that if they want to give to charity, it should be their decision, not the governments. And that's basically what they're doing when they're being forced to pay more. Obama says, hey let's take this persons money and give it to those not as fortunate. Liberals think "They have so much money, they won't miss it if we increase the taxes to help those struggling". But republicans think "I don't want to be forced to give to charity (which is what it basically is because those in welfare get more money), I worked hard for it. Is not my fault they have misfortune, so why punish me for their doing?"

Republicans tend to be hardworking businessmen who understand the value of money.



Actually. Most republicans have higher degrees than liberals.

I accept that I don't live in america but I would like to think I have a good idea about american politics. I've read several books about the Kennedy's and there correlation in the civil rights movement. I've read books about Ike, Truman and Nixon. Don't dismiss me because I live the in UK. I understand the very strange american mindset and I understand the history of the democrat party.

I live in a country where socialism has worked, if it wasn't for the NHS I would have been dead- simple as. I never understand why america is so afraid of improving it's society. Just because your on welfare doesn't mean you haven't worked hard.

I also think the government should intervene in order to pursue equality, they need to take action as they have in Britain to give equal rights to the LGBT community, look at the Rob Portman affect... Conservative's can't oppose it forever and expect to stay in office

[Professional Russian]

It's not punishing the rich, it's simply doing what's best for everyone. The rich will still be rich, they'll just have a bit less money. No one is suggesting taking away all of rich people's money.

Saying the rich should pay the same taxes as the poor means that there will be huge inequality in society. This isn't good for anyone. Societies with more equality have higher qualities of life, and are just generally better places to live in. To only care about the rich is very short sighted.

You sound like a communist. Wanting to distribute money equally

[Cicero]

I accept that I don't live in america but I would like to think I have a good idea about american politics. I've read several books about the Kennedy's and there correlation in the civil rights movement. I've read books about Ike, Truman and Nixon. Don't dismiss me because I live the in UK. I understand the very strange american mindset and I understand the history of the democrat party.

I live in a country where socialism has worked, if it wasn't for the NHS I would have been dead- simple as. I never understand why america is so afraid of improving it's society. Just because your on welfare doesn't mean you haven't worked hard.
This is your mindset
You reading books=Knowing everything about the US and what it's like to live here

Your country is small, the state of Minnesota Is the size of your whole country (maybe even bigger). England also isn't known around the world has the country that as the richest people. America is. That's probably a sign that suggests the rich don't want to live there due to the stupid laws or government, like socialism.



correction:

The UK is 94,000 sq miles while Minnesota is 87,000 sq miles. But Montana is 147,000 sq miles. We're almost 40x bigger than the UK. It's sooooo much easier controlling such a small country
You sound like a communist. Wanting to distribute money equally
That's socialism

[Harry Smith]

This is your mindset
You reading books=Knowing everything about the US and what it's like to live here

Your country is small, the state of Minnesota Is the size of your whole country (maybe even bigger). England also isn't known around the world has the country that as the richest people. America is. That's probably a sign that suggests the rich don't want to live there due to the stupid laws or government, like socialism.



That's socialism

Our country may be small, but many people have tried to dismiss us based on that. Hitler tried it in 1939 and he fought he could crush us but we stood tall. Don't make the arrogant mistake of underestimating Britain. We had the Biggest empire in the history of the world. Don't dismiss Britain- it was pretty much our army which helped you get ohio, we've fought shoulder to shoulder since 1917. Don't Dismiss us as a small country.

[Sugaree]

ITT: butthurt over people being reasonable

[Cicero]

Our country may be small, but many people have tried to dismiss us based on that. Hitler tried it in 1939 and he fought he could crush us but we stood tall. Don't make the arrogant mistake of underestimating Britain. We had the Biggest empire in the history of the world. Don't dismiss Britain- it was pretty much our army which helped you get ohio, we've fought shoulder to shoulder since 1917. Don't Dismiss us as a small country.

You stood tall *chuckles* because we were sending supplies to you guys. You guys would've been destroyed without our support. The Spanish empire was the biggest.

You did nothing with ohio. you were defending it from the french. It was pretty much our army that helped you from being destroyed from Germany and Italy.

Most wealthy people don't want to live in your country because of your socialism. So it's basically middle class supporting middle class/lower class.

[Sugaree]

You stood tall *chuckles* because we were sending supplies to you guys. You guys would've been destroyed without our support. The Spanish empire was the biggest.

You did nothing with ohio. you were defending it from the french. It was pretty much our army that helped you from being destroyed from Germany and Italy.

Most wealthy people don't want to live in your country because of your socialism. So it's basically middle class supporting middle class/lower class.

You clearly know next to nothing about socialism. England is far from a socialist country. Their economy is structured much like the United States economy. If they're socialists, they're pretty fucking lousy ones.

[Harry Smith]

You stood tall *chuckles* because we were sending supplies to you guys. You guys would've been destroyed without our support. The Spanish empire was the biggest.

You did nothing with ohio. you were defending it from the french. It was pretty much our army that helped you from being destroyed from Germany and Italy.

Most wealthy people don't want to live in your country because of your socialism. So it's basically middle class supporting middle class/lower class.

That statement is completely untrue. We got involved because we had actually had an international moral compass. We fought the battle of Britain with Spitfires and Hurricanes, made in Britain. We used Radio towers made in Britain and we used pilots that we from Britain and the commonwealth. We fought hard for two years without you. Look at Kasserine pass- a good example of how the US army. Why do yanks always think we fought badly in ww2, we were there for 6 years and the british people were prepared to take us arms and take on with us if the German's landed.

The 'socialist' element of our government- the NHS saved my life.

[Cicero]

You clearly know next to nothing about socialism. England is far from a socialist country. Their economy is structured much like the United States economy. If they're socialists, they're pretty fucking lousy ones.

I accept that I don't live in america but I would like to think I have a good idea about american politics. I've read several books about the Kennedy's and there correlation in the civil rights movement. I've read books about Ike, Truman and Nixon. Don't dismiss me because I live the in UK. I understand the very strange american mindset and I understand the history of the democrat party.

I live in a country where socialism has worked, if it wasn't for the NHS I would have been dead- simple as. I never understand why america is so afraid of improving it's society. Just because your on welfare doesn't mean you haven't worked hard.

I also think the government should intervene in order to pursue equality, they need to take action as they have in Britain to give equal rights to the LGBT community, look at the Rob Portman affect... Conservative's can't oppose it forever and expect to stay in office
Oh. Just figured based off of what he said.


That statement is completely untrue. We got involved because we had actually had an international moral compass. We fought the battle of Britain with Spitfires and Hurricanes, made in Britain. We used Radio towers made in Britain and we used pilots that we from Britain and the commonwealth. We fought hard for two years without you. Look at Kasserine pass- a good example of how the US army. Why do yanks always think we fought badly in ww2, we were there for 6 years and the british people were prepared to take us arms and take on with us if the German's landed.

The 'socialist' element of our government- the NHS saved my life.
You guys couldn't keep it up for much longer, then we started helping you guys out. We only got involved cause of the Japs and their Jap attack on Pearl Harbor. You guys couldn't have kept it up. That's why you guys started intercepting German mail, cause originally we were getting news from both Germany and the UK. So when you guys intercepted their mail, we were only hearing what you guys wanted us to hear.

[Sugaree]

Oh. Just figured based off of what he said.

Until one of the both of you show me specific examples that Britain is socialist, I'm going to keep saying it isn't based on the fact that the means of production, basically the core of all socialist philosophy, belongs to the proletariat. Just because they have universal healthcare and a few more social programs does not make them a socialist country.

I never understand why america is so afraid of improving it's society. Just because your on welfare doesn't mean you haven't worked hard.

I'm not saying people on welfare haven't worked hard. However, there's multiple generations of people using the welfare system because they always have and have never tried making it on their own. When you have leeches, you don't keep feeding them blood; you remove them from the system. And if they can't make it on their own, then it shouldn't be the government's responsibility to care for them long term. That's the problem most people have with welfare in the United States: you can be on it for as long as you like and not do a god damned thing for yourself.

[Harry Smith]

Oh. Just figured based off of what he said.



You guys couldn't keep it up for much longer, then we started helping you guys out. We only got involved cause of the Japs and their Jap attack on Pearl Harbor. You guys couldn't have kept it up. That's why you guys started intercepting German mail, cause originally we were getting news from both Germany and the UK. So when you guys intercepted their mail, we were only hearing what you guys wanted us to hear.

Sorry, I was referring to socialist idea to introduce universal healthcare, we have had socialist parties rule our country many a times and they have tried to introduce nationalistic of our industries.

Yes we needed american support, but I would like to remind you that if we had dropped out in 1940 and became a puppet for the Nazis then where would your boats for Operation overload came from, how would your b-17's reach Germany. Don't discount the British from WW2, we had the fighting on our doorstep, my gran lost her house in the Blitz, my granddad lost his brother in market garden. You can't dismiss Britain from the world just because it suits your Xenophobic agenda

[Cicero]

Sorry, I was referring to socialist idea to introduce universal healthcare, we have had socialist parties rule our country many a times and they have tried to introduce nationalistic of our industries.

Yes we needed american support, but I would like to remind you that if we had dropped out in 1940 and became a puppet for the Nazis then where would your boats for Operation overload came from, how would your b-17's reach Germany. Don't discount the British from WW2, we had the fighting on our doorstep, my gran lost her house in the Blitz, my granddad lost his brother in market garden. You can't dismiss Britain from the world just because it suits your Xenophobic agenda
Lol far from..

I was just saying that the war was won cause of us.

[Sugaree]

Lol far from..

I was just saying that the war was won cause of us.

Actually, neither side would have won if it weren't for the Soviets. Remember, we were allied with the UK and USSR. If it weren't for the USSR barrage on Berlin, the War would never have been won. And yes, it IS xenophobic to claim that the war was won because of the US. That gives all the credit to us and we only came into the war when it was half way over.

[Harry Smith]

Lol far from..

I was just saying that the war was won cause of us.

I agree with fisk, US certainly didn't win the war on there own. The soviets did a lot of hard work but that is often overlooked. For america to win on there own you would of had to land in either North Africa or France without stopping at Britain, then somehow face all 150 divisions of the SS and German army with the only air support being offered from Carriers. That is how the US would 'win the war' and we all know that WW2 was far from the above

[naglfari]

Wow this really took off. When I get home I'll post more but I'm not seeing anything that changes my opinion. Lot of talk about freedom that just adds up to freedom for some to totally oppress the rest. And basically no understanding of how a country or economy works lol

[Cicero]

I agree with fisk, US certainly didn't win the war on there own. The soviets did a lot of hard work but that is often overlooked. For america to win on there own you would of had to land in either North Africa or France without stopping at Britain, then somehow face all 150 divisions of the SS and German army with the only air support being offered from Carriers. That is how the US would 'win the war' and we all know that WW2 was far from the above

You were basically saying the UK did the majority of the work and I was basically saying th USA did most of the work.

[Harry Smith]

Wow this really took off. When I get home I'll post more but I'm not seeing anything that changes my opinion. Lot of talk about freedom that just adds up to freedom for some to totally oppress the rest. And basically no understanding of how a country or economy works lol

what?

[naglfari]

And I just want to say more laws don't mean less freedom all the time. If there were no laws against slavery would we be a more our less free country?

[Harry Smith]

You were basically saying the UK did the majority of the work and I was basically saying th USA did most of the work.

Please quote where I said the UK did most of the work... I always said throughout that the UK fought hard and that we were capable of surviving, I'm of the view and always have been that the Soviets did the most work.

[Cicero]

Our country may be small, but many people have tried to dismiss us based on that. Hitler tried it in 1939 and he fought he could crush us but we stood tall. Don't make the arrogant mistake of underestimating Britain. We had the Biggest empire in the history of the world. Don't dismiss Britain- it was pretty much our army which helped you get ohio, we've fought shoulder to shoulder since 1917. Don't Dismiss us as a small country.

That statement is completely untrue. We got involved because we had actually had an international moral compass. We fought the battle of Britain with Spitfires and Hurricanes, made in Britain. We used Radio towers made in Britain and we used pilots that we from Britain and the commonwealth. We fought hard for two years without you. Look at Kasserine pass- a good example of how the US army. Why do yanks always think we fought badly in ww2, we were there for 6 years and the british people were prepared to take us arms and take on with us if the German's landed.

The 'socialist' element of our government- the NHS saved my life.

Never mentioned Russia or soviet once. Britain, Britain, Britain.

[Harry Smith]

I agree with fisk, US certainly didn't win the war on there own. The soviets did a lot of hard work but that is often overlooked. For america to win on there own you would of had to land in either North Africa or France without stopping at Britain, then somehow face all 150 divisions of the SS and German army with the only air support being offered from Carriers. That is how the US would 'win the war' and we all know that WW2 was far from the above

Never mentioned Russia or soviet once. Britain, Britain, Britain.

I never said that Britain won the war by itself did I? You accused me of saying that and I simply did not say that. Do you wish to withdraw your accusation?

Also if you look above I say that I thought the soviets did a lot of hard work, and I always have. I can even dig up an old thread.

[Cicero]

I never said that Britain won the war by itself did I? You accused me of saying that and I simply did not say that. Do you wish to withdraw your accusation?

Also if you look above I say that I thought the soviets did a lot of hard work, and I always have. I can even dig up an old thread.

Okay

[naglfari]

The USA mostly focused on Japan it didn't do a lot vs nazis compared to Europe

#basichistory

Also, back then the UK controlled like a fourth of the world it was no small weak island

[Harry Smith]

Okay

The thread has managed to allude me, but I remember discussing with somehow how much work was done by the Russians in WW2, they lost lots of their industry and had to remove the rest of it to the east. They lost massive chunks of infantry and over 500 planes in the first day alone. They managed to fight back from the gates of Moscow all the way to Berlin

[Cicero]

The USA mostly focused on Japan it didn't do a lot vs nazis compared to Europe

#basichistory

Also, back then the UK controlled like a fourth of the world it was no small weak island

20 years ago, 200 years ago, 2000 years ago? Back then sure is descriptive and precise, not.

[naglfari]

During ww2 obviously. There's this thing called context...

The British empire included half of Africa, India, Australia and Canada

[Cicero]

During ww2 obviously. There's this thing called context...

The British empire included half of Africa, India, Australia and Canada

There's this thing called being vague... :lol:

[naglfari]

It was a dumb question, accept it and move on

[Sugaree]

#basichistory

We don't do hash tags here.

[naglfari]

#idc

[Professional Russian]

Oh god this is going to turn I to a spam thread......let the spamming begin :P

[CharlieHorse]

Oh god this is going to turn I to a spam thread......let the spamming begin :P

I was just thinking this... :/
What is the world coming to? Hate and hashtags in places they shouldn't be. :/

[naglfari]

It was just a joke everyone calm down lol

[Hunter_Steel]

Conservatism all the way. If I worked hard for the money I earned, then I will no, I repeat, I will NOT give it to some lazy ass who doesn't want to work. But I could give my money to help orphans and animal shelters. But I won't give it to some hobo who doesn't want to work for it. Thats my choice, the government shouldn't have any right whatsoever to tell me to spread my money to anyone THEY think I should.

~Hunter

[Sugaree]

I was just thinking this... :/
What is the world coming to? Hate and hashtags in places they shouldn't be. :/

If having a discussion is spam, then this entire board needs to deleted.


#idc
It was just a joke everyone calm down lol

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/285/136/44e.jpg

Either debate and discuss or go back to twitter.

Conservatism all the way. If I worked hard for the money I earned, then I will no, I repeat, I will NOT give it to some lazy ass who doesn't want to work. But I could give my money to help orphans and animal shelters. But I won't give it to some hobo who doesn't want to work for it. Thats my choice, the government shouldn't have any right whatsoever to tell me to spread my money to anyone THEY think I should.

~Hunter

Says the person who also believes government should make same-sex marriage illegal. Yeah, good conservatism buddy.

This is all I'm gonna say about conservatism: it's not about keeping the money you make, it's about keeping the people as free as possible without infringing upon the rights of others. Conservatism has virtually nothing to do with the economy or money in general, so it doesn't belong in this debate.

[naglfari]

Conservatism all the way. If I worked hard for the money I earned, then I will no, I repeat, I will NOT give it to some lazy ass who doesn't want to work. But I could give my money to help orphans and animal shelters. But I won't give it to some hobo who doesn't want to work for it. Thats my choice, the government shouldn't have any right whatsoever to tell me to spread my money to anyone THEY think I should.

~Hunter

ok so. I have a big problem with this.

1) 80% of people on welfare, on foodstamps specifically, are working. 70% working full time. they aren't lazy, they're stuck at dead end jobs and without education opportunities or the ability to spend money on anything other than food, they'll be stuck in poverty forever, no matter what they do.

2) every country runs on taxes. if you want to live in america and benefit from all the opportunity it does provide you, you have to pay the price for living here.

3) the economy and the country works a lot better with progressive taxes. what a lot of you are talking about is wanting a federal government with no power. a federal government with no power is no federal government. which means this is no longer a democracy. you'd basically be turning america into a country totally controlled by corporations who can exploit everyone.

[Gigablue]

Conservatism all the way. If I worked hard for the money I earned, then I will no, I repeat, I will NOT give it to some lazy ass who doesn't want to work. But I could give my money to help orphans and animal shelters. But I won't give it to some hobo who doesn't want to work for it. Thats my choice, the government shouldn't have any right whatsoever to tell me to spread my money to anyone THEY think I should.

~Hunter

The vast majority of people on welfare aren't there because of laziness, but rather due to unfortunate circumstances. I'm sure there are some lazy people, but most of them are trying hard to make a good income, they just can't find a good enough paying job. Also, many of them have children. Is it fair to punish children for the bad luck of their parents?

Also, supporting the poor is a good thing for everyone. If they get some support temporarily, they will eventually be able to get a better job and become self sufficient. Once that happens, they start to contribute to the work force and they benefit society.

[naglfari]

oh yeah I wanted to say this earlier

anyone opposed to obamacare is out of their minds. it's cheaper and it will save a lot more lives. literally no downside.

[Sugaree]

oh yeah I wanted to say this earlier

anyone opposed to obamacare is out of their minds. it's cheaper and it will save a lot more lives. literally no downside.

Except the downside that people who don't buy insurance before the mandate will be penalized more and more for each year they don't have insurance. Yeah, not a downside at all right? What about people who simply can't afford insurance? What about them? If they can't buy insurance, they get a raise in their taxes. How is that fair?

[naglfari]

Except the downside that people who don't buy insurance before the mandate will be penalized more and more for each year they don't have insurance. Yeah, not a downside at all right? What about people who simply can't afford insurance? What about them? If they can't buy insurance, they get a raise in their taxes. How is that fair?

if they can't afford it the government basically helps pay for it or pays for it entirely, depending on the situation. the only people who will be stuck unable to get it because they cant afford it, are those in states controlled by republican governors refusing to accept the federal help (the supreme court made the federal aid not mandatory so that governors could choose whether to take it or not). and I bet they'll relent pretty quickly since they're denying voters health insurance for no reason at all.

[Sugaree]

if they can't afford it the government basically helps pay for it or pays for it entirely, depending on the situation. the only people who will be stuck unable to get it because they cant afford it, are those in states controlled by republican governors refusing to accept the federal help (the supreme court made the federal aid not mandatory so that governors could choose whether to take it or not). and I bet they'll relent pretty quickly since they're denying voters health insurance for no reason at all.

This is the exact problem with the healthcare overhaul. It forces government to meddle in an area it shouldn't even be bothered with. The insurance field is constantly changing, and having government stick its hands into the pie is NOT what we need. I'll give the healthcare overhaul this much, it's a step in the right direction; but it is, by no means, a perfect system.

[naglfari]

of course it should be meddling. our privatized healthcare system is really terrible. one of the worst in the entire developed world, despite having the best doctors. that's because everyone else has totally socialized healthcare, which is much better because shockingly some things run more efficiently without all the price gauging.

here's what obamacare does:

it makes it so that insurance companies can't drop you when you get sick (lol).
it makes it so that they cant deny you service because you already have some kind of condition.

these 2 things are very important, because right now the people who most need health insurance often can't get it.

but since a system like that would mean anyone could just wait til they get sick to get insurance, it also makes it so everyone just has to get insurance to be fair to the insurance companies too.

finally, since you have to have insurance, it says if you can't pay for it, the government will help. so this also means a lot of poor people who can't get insurance will also get it. this is also great for the cost because it means those poor people can get regular checkups that will save hospitals a lot of money preventing problems that get a lot worse later.

finally, it says insurance companies have to spend 80% of their profits on actually helping patients, to prevent price gauging.


this is a good system. maybe not as good as fully socialized healthcare like in most countries, but way better than our current system, which is an embarrassment.

[Cicero]

of course it should be meddling. our privatized healthcare system is really terrible. one of the worst in the entire developed world, despite having the best doctors. that's because everyone else has totally socialized healthcare, which is much better because shockingly some things run more efficiently without all the price gauging.

here's what obamacare does:

it makes it so that insurance companies can't drop you when you get sick (lol).
it makes it so that they cant deny you service because you already have some kind of condition.

these 2 things are very important, because right now the people who most need health insurance often can't get it.

but since a system like that would mean anyone could just wait til they get sick to get insurance, it also makes it so everyone just has to get insurance to be fair to the insurance companies too.

finally, since you have to have insurance, it says if you can't pay for it, the government will help. so this also means a lot of poor people who can't get insurance will also get it. this is also great for the cost because it means those poor people can get regular checkups that will save hospitals a lot of money preventing problems that get a lot worse later.

finally, it says insurance companies have to spend 80% of their profits on actually helping patients, to prevent price gauging.


this is a good system. maybe not as good as fully socialized healthcare like in most countries, but way better than our current system, which is an embarrassment.
Wrong. That's the point of health insurance. They won't drop you for getting sick.

There are very few beneficial proposals in it. It's not the governments job to make sure everyone is healthy and getting their check ups. The government is only here to represent us in an organized manner and protect us. They're not here to provide health insurance, or buy houses for people, or buy their food, or pay for private schooling. So many people are already dependent on the government, this will only increase it. The government should be small, not big.

[naglfari]

but thats what happens right now. if you get too sick and they decide you're too expensive, they stop covering you

small government is an ideology. not a practical idea. you know other countries around the world, they look at us like we're insane for not providing health insurance totally through the government. in most countries its considered a basic right.

i think your idea of a government is inhumane. america does very little assistance for the poor as it is compared to other democracies.

[Hunter_Steel]

Many governments
DO NOT SUPPLY MEDICARE. That is taken care of by private companies. The government should only provide a small bit but NOT ENTIRELY MEDDLE ON OUR LIVES. That is not an inhumane government, but a less corrupted one.

[Harry Smith]

Many governments
DO NOT SUPPLY MEDICARE. That is taken care of by private companies. The government should only provide a small bit but NOT ENTIRELY MEDDLE ON OUR LIVES. That is not an inhumane government, but a less corrupted one.

So you think it is corrupt for a government for to intervene in our life. I hope that the government will ' meddle' in my life and allow gay marriage to be passed so that one day I'll be able to marry the person that I want

[Professional Russian]

So you think it is corrupt for a government for to intervene in our life. I hope that the government will ' meddle' in my life and allow gay marriage to be passed so that one day I'll be able to marry the person that I want

Why should the government have a decision in who you marry? Why should they tell me and you what we can and can't do?

[Harry Smith]

Why should the government have a decision in who you marry? Why should they tell me and you what we can and can't do?

Because as it currently stands I can't legally marry who I want, in Britain it was only since the British Coalition have introduced a Bill through the house of commons will I be able to marry who I want. Because as it stands if we leave it as it is then in many states across the pond gays will not be able to marry who they want. The federal government should intervene and allow gay marriage

[Professional Russian]

Because as it currently stands I can't legally marry who I want, in Britain it was only since the British Coalition have introduced a Bill through the house of commons will I be able to marry who I want. Because as it stands if we leave it as it is then in many states across the pond gays will not be able to marry who they want. The federal government should intervene and allow gay marriage

Your not understanding me. Why should the government have a say in who you can and can't marry? If you want to marry another man why should they say whether you can or can't?

[Harry Smith]

Your not understanding me. Why should the government have a say in who you can and can't marry? If you want to marry another man why should they say whether you can or can't?

Because the Government should promote Equality, the government have the responsibility of running the country and entwined with that they have the responsibility to ensure that all citizens have equal rights.

I understand your idea of wanting a smaller government and more personal freedom for individuals but I think this is an issue why the government need to get involved because as it stand without the government I can't marry a man

[Professional Russian]

Because the Government should promote Equality, the government have the responsibility of running the country and entwined with that they have the responsibility to ensure that all citizens have equal rights.

I understand your idea of wanting a smaller government and more personal freedom for individuals but I think this is an issue why the government need to get involved because as it stand without the government I can't marry a man

The government should not decide who you can and can't marry. That is not their job.

[Harry Smith]

The government should not decide who you can and can't marry. That is not their job.

Okay, so if the government took that advice now and took an impartial view then how would I be able to marry a man, I need the government to intervne, because without the government telling me that I can marry a man I can't due to the fact that there isn't legislation. Your view really isn't practical, there needs to be legislation because at the moment gay marriage can't legally happen.

[Professional Russian]

Okay, so if the government took that advice now and took an impartial view then how would I be able to marry a man, I need the government to intervne, because without the government telling me that I can marry a man I can't due to the fact that there isn't legislation. Your view really isn't practical, there needs to be legislation because at the moment gay marriage can't legally happen.

Yes that's the problem now. I'm not talking about what's happening now. I'm asking why should the government tell you who and who you can't marry?

[Harry Smith]

Yes that's the problem now. I'm not talking about what's happening now. I'm asking why should the government tell you who and who you can't marry?

I understand the fact that your opposed to a large federal government, but your looking at the ideological side of the argument where as I'm looking at the practical element. Yes it would be great if we had a smaller government where I could marry who I want, pay less taxes and do what I want but that is just not practical. The government are capable of successfully intervening to protect the rights of it's citizens.

[Professional Russian]

I understand the fact that your opposed to a large federal government, but your looking at the ideological side of the argument where as I'm looking at the practical element. Yes it would be great if we had a smaller government where I could marry who I want, pay less taxes and do what I want but that is just not practical. The government are capable of successfully intervening to protect the rights of it's citizens.

But why do they need to tell you who you can and can't marry? I think you're over thinking this.

[xmojox]

But why do they need to tell you who you can and can't marry? I think you're over thinking this.

Who someone marries never should have been an issue decided by the government, but, since the government stuck it's fingers in when times and beliefs were different, it is now up to the government to protect the basic civil rights of the LGBT community. In America, it's the function of the Supreme Court to safeguard our rights when others would infringe upon them. The reason that the Judicial was created as a separate branch of our government was to ensure the checks and balances system that we're built upon.

If the government hadn't intervened, women would still be disenfranchised, institutionalized racism would still exist, the voting age would still be 21, the list goes on and on.

I personally believe that smaller government is better (ours was intended to be small), but, smaller government doesn't mean that government shouldn't fulfill it's obligations to the governed by protecting their rights.

[naglfari]

But why do they need to tell you who you can and can't marry? I think you're over thinking this.

because marriage comes with tax benefits and things like being allowed into the hospital room of your spouse. there's a whole legal side to marriage that's pretty necessary

Many governments
DO NOT SUPPLY MEDICARE. That is taken care of by private companies. The government should only provide a small bit but NOT ENTIRELY MEDDLE ON OUR LIVES. That is not an inhumane government, but a less corrupted one.

name one that isn't a shithole


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

[randomnessqueen]

'conservative' isnt a certain set of beliefs, it changes from area to area. and theyre arent necessarily wrong about everything. if you are liberal then they will disagree with most everything you believe, but liberalism is not necessarily correct either. i think conservativism and liberalism both have good points and bad points.

[Sir Suomi]

Liberals are the most hypocritical people out there. They demand change on some topics, while on other topics they say they shouldn't be changed. At least a Conservative is consistent.

[xmojox]

Liberals are the most hypocritical people out there. They demand change on some topics, while on other topics they say they shouldn't be changed. At least a Conservative is consistent.

In fairness, I don't see how believing that some things should change while others shouldn't is hypocrisy...

_________________________


Maybe it would be prudent for us to define our terms. What do we mean when we say conservative and liberal?

[RyGar]

Liberals are the most hypocritical people out there. They demand change on some topics, while on other topics they say they shouldn't be changed. At least a Conservative is consistent.

Alright come on, mudslinging is not gonna win the argument here. Sure some liberals are hypocritical, so are some conservatives, i.e. the whole part with government exclusion from bed room and wallet. There are always some hypocrites on both sides, there have been since governments first started, deciding who is more hypocritical does not prove who is better at governing. No matter which side you agree with, both are necessary, a check and a balance. Liberalism would not be effective without conservatives, at the same time, conservatives would not be effective without liberals. Both sides offer mny valid and invalid points, thus both sides are necessary to a functioning government.

[Jean Poutine]

People that refuse to fight for the well-being of their fellow humans are idiots.

Rich people should be taxed the Hell out of and the money redistributed correctly. You think conservatism is about free choice? Fuck no, conservatism is about serving the elite so they can stay there. What free choice is there for those people born in slums and stuck in slums precisely because the American elite is too fucking morally bankrupt to actually do something for those people that just don't have luck? Philanthropy? Don't make me laugh, the rich give for one thing and one thing only, with rare exceptions : tax credits. People aren't made equal and aren't created in equal circumstances, I think it's only fair to allow everybody as equal a shot at success as possible. The government is there to even the odds.

Without the government, who would take care of those that are less fortunate? You can't even trust the private sector to avoid buttfucking the economy every 10 years, would you trust it with the welfare of your spouse and kids when you've fallen onto hard times? If the private sector is so benevolent and awesome, why are Wal-Mart employees treated like shit and paid peanuts when the company amasses huge amounts of profit? Why do everybody bitches about the benefits afforded to employees of the public sector when some private companies are well in their means to give the exact same, but choose not to? If anything the government needs to be stronger and corporations need to be stopped, especially in America where they have freedom of expression (?!) and can thus contribute billions to political campaigns...

To all of those whining about medicaid, food stamps, welfare, etc, well I hope you have the courage of your convictions and don't apply for any of that if you ever should lose your job because some corporate fuck thought he could save the company your salary in expenses, just to put it in his pocket. We'll see how long you last. Also don't bother applying for federal school loans, employment insurance or any of those other services that are part of the social safety net. When you get brain cancer, pay for the treatment yourself. Why should I be bothered with your problems? Because I'd rather you live, even if I don't know you and even if you're stupid enough to actually rail against public health care. Everybody deserves to live.

The State is the only entity that can afford to be paternalistic, because as conservatives prove time and time again, people are fucking stupid and need to be protected from themselves. A lot of people are simply unable to look after themselves and it's wrong and barbarous to leave them to the mercy of a sector who's avowed goal is to turn out a profit, no matter the costs, or even worse, at the mercy of a dog eat dog world.

Let me tell you one thing, the government is paying 100% of my tuition as well as giving me a living stipend, the government paid me shrinks, counselors, pills etc when I needed it most, the government allowed me to have the latitude as an unemployed student to move out of a very toxic household and permitted me to rebuild my life away from psychological abuse, manipulation and plain old bitching, and it's thanks to that safety net that I am able to contribute in turn as a productive member of society. The government saved my life and the life of millions of others.

Unlike 99.99% of you, I actually pay income tax (hey, why don't you get off your ass and GET A JOB to pay your way through high school? Wait, you don't have to because it's publicly funded and I'm paying it for you with pleasure. Go away.) and I'm proud of it for contributing to the welfare of all. I agree with everyone else that people that abuse that safety net are monsters and disgusting because they are siphoning resources away from people that need them, but how exactly would that change if the safety net was in the hands of the private sector, or worse, if there were none at all? That's more of a slight on the checks in place than of the concept in itself.

Why should the government be able to tell you who you can and can't marry? Marriage is a contract and contracts need to be enforced by an entity and the rights and obligations created by such a contract, respected and enforced by that same entity, do I really need to fucking spell it out for God's sake?

Why are people conservatives? Simply put, because they're dumber than average. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/intelligence-study-links-prejudice_n_1237796.html)

[Hunter_Steel]

Why am I conservative?

I prefer to keep to myself, and myself to myself. Everything that belongs to me to myself and my money to myself, unless it comes to donating to an orphanage or an animal shelter. But, otherwise, the government takes the money we earn, lets us have atleast 40% after getting ass raped by taxes, and uses that 60% on warfare and on other things that I myself would rather give my money by MY Choice. The government shouldn't tell me how to spend my money. Its mine to do with as I please, not the governments.

Also: Marriage is NOT a contract. Its the joining of two people who love eachother. Should the government be involved in that? I say NO to that because: I would rather marry, and deal with the consequences of divorce later, than let the government interfere with that and say: Congratz, your now a legal couple. Its like: wtf is your problem? We are legal citizens of this country, so why the fuck should I take it to a compliment that we are now a legally married couple? Screw that.

So, on the other hand, people who need the money need it. But its my choice to give my money away or not. The Government can find another way to pay for all the stuff it promises. But don't make me suffer because of that. Rich people should get the fuck taxed out of them for being rich? Then how would we live the lives we want to live with just 20 or even 15% of the earnings we actually make? Fuck that, if I wanted to live a life like that, I would've studied to have a job that would let me live a life of the average person.

That is how I see it.

~Hunter

[naglfari]

So basically you're selfish

[CharlieHorse]

So basically you're selfish

Lol :P

[Harry Smith]

Why am I conservative?

I prefer to keep to myself, and myself to myself. Everything that belongs to me to myself and my money to myself, unless it comes to donating to an orphanage or an animal shelter. But, otherwise, the government takes the money we earn, lets us have atleast 40% after getting ass raped by taxes, and uses that 60% on warfare and on other things that I myself would rather give my money by MY Choice. The government shouldn't tell me how to spend my money. Its mine to do with as I please, not the governments.

Also: Marriage is NOT a contract. Its the joining of two people who love eachother. Should the government be involved in that? I say NO to that because: I would rather marry, and deal with the consequences of divorce later, than let the government interfere with that and say: Congratz, your now a legal couple. Its like: wtf is your problem? We are legal citizens of this country, so why the fuck should I take it to a compliment that we are now a legally married couple? Screw that.

So, on the other hand, people who need the money need it. But its my choice to give my money away or not. The Government can find another way to pay for all the stuff it promises. But don't make me suffer because of that. Rich people should get the fuck taxed out of them for being rich? Then how would we live the lives we want to live with just 20 or even 15% of the earnings we actually make? Fuck that, if I wanted to live a life like that, I would've studied to have a job that would let me live a life of the average person.

That is how I see it.

~Hunter

First of all I'm loving the language used by you, hopefully soon we'll see treasury officials using words like 'ass raped' to describe tax rates. You sound very arrogant towards the end and it pretty much dismisses your whole argument.

Your argument with taxes isn't even that of my conservatives that you want lower taxes, you claim that taxes are immoral because it's your money. So by that theory then you shouldn't use roads, schools, police stations, fire stations or the post office due to the fact they are all paid for by your taxes

[naglfari]

Anarchy isn't any way to run a country

[Korashk]

Anarchy isn't any way to run a country
I think that would be the point.

[naglfari]

I think that would be the point.

what

[Danny_boi 16]

seems like, they're so wrong about literally every single thing they believe in, that you'd have to be trying to be dumb to be a conservative. It makes no sense to me

To me that if things within the parties democrats and republicans is within their name. Democrats seeking democracy republicans see republicanism. Democracy, a direct democracy, will leaves to the falling of civilization. A lot of republican and conservative views are fiscally conservative. Meaning that they find it’s improper to waste the money of taxpayers on frugal ideas. Although both sides of the political spectrum have then radicals we must cede beyond those radicals and finds on the middle way. Some democratic views don’t make sense, such as bailouts. Now I choose to label myself a democrat; however, fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Conservatives or republicans believe that if the company is failing let it fail, so a new one may take its place. They find it in responsible to use taxpayer money to help the failing business. Not everyone can be equal in this game to be called capitalism, is a dog eat dog world. And only the Alpha dog shall be victorious.
Less conservative believes do you find to be wrong, elaborate?

The way I see it conservatives tend to flourish during and after a country's boom, when people are getting richer and they want to stay that way. Like in 1950's with IKE, everything seemed to be going well with America, then the Kennedy's came along and in turn so did the rise of civil right's meaning that the majority of american's wanted a change. In my view the Republicans want an America based on the 1950's

May I remind you, it was under a republican administration and republican controlled house, that slavery in the United States was abolished. In fact it was the Democratic Party that did not what to see change.

Grayregrets quoted it correct. We want low taxes, limited government, strong defense. I don't want the governement to provide anything for me except national defense. I don't want social security/medicare/obamacare/welfare/food stamps or anything of the sort. I want to take care of myself and my family. And I don't want to support other people through those programs.

Social issues like gay marriage, guns, abortion shouldn't even be federal issues. The federal government has no business telling individuals whether or not they can own guns, have abortions, or who they can marry. They should just stay out of it and leave people alone.

I would say it's dumb to be a liberal. Why do you want the government to provide everything for everyone, to take from some people and give to another, to regulate what companies can and can't do and how you live your life? Can't you take responsibility for yourself?

The great thing about America is that you have the freedom to try and succeed and the freedom to fail or the freedom to do nothing. But if you do nothing or fail, nobody owes you anything because of it.

I just want to be left alone to make my own choices and be responsible and accountable for them 100% myself!



The Federal government’s most in the lives of individuals or they will be disarray. It is quite appropriate that the Federal government is hearing these issues. But people have chosen their elected representatives. Therefore all decisions reached by municipal, gubernatorial, and Federal governments or the will of the people. Everything that is decided in Congress or a courthouse is the will of the people. If you limit government then you limit the people. Taxes are necessary for a community and a society to survive and prosper. You’ll argue that this “freedom” will disappear with the larger governments. Governments must not be too big, or they will fail. And government must not be too small, or it will crumble at the mercy and perversions all the people.

[naglfari]

bailouts aren't really a liberal idea. there's a ton of democrats opposed to bailouts, and a lot of republicans are for them. bush was for them

[TurboDieselBandit]

I would say it's dumb to be a liberal. Why do you want the government to provide everything for everyone, to take from some people and give to another, to regulate what companies can and can't do and how you live your life? Can't you take responsibility for yourself?


Life without government seems to work well in the middle east and terribly in all established counties right?

Without some level of government America would turn to anarchy. No safe society, profitable business, functional home, regulated jail, or working school can exist without some authoritative figure. Without government turmoil (fighting, war, genocide) ensues and the person with the most guns and willing to kill the most people will take control. If you think without government, you'll live in a free utopian society, your naive about the world. (no offense)


We need to regulate business. Its important that businesses play by the same rules, monopolies not exist, companies be held responsible for their actions and consumer goods remain safe OR we can let business do as they please especially considering money is above all else. Big business wants to remove regulation because they care about the wellbeing of the consumer in a capitalist society.

Conservative political ideas tend to benefit only those living well in relatively safe areas. Yet wants to make things difficult for those struggling to make ends meet in a dangerous area were gun violence runs rampant.

WELFARE'S NOT FOR THE LAZY, sure some people take advantage of it as with anything, but how do you know whose on welfare and whose not? or where their money goes? You judge and assume things about people that "fit" your idea of people on welfare, inaccurate and arrogant as it is. I wouldn't be where I am if it were not for government programs and the same is true for most of us college students. How do you expect someone to help themselves if you want to get rid of their tools? ...because you have a personal problem helping your fellow brother and sister.

My family is the product of these "Awful, wasteful government programs to pay bills for the lazy". My mom raised 3 kids as a single parent through college and through law school while dealing with the sudden an tragic death of my dad and receiving NO financial support from her parents for tuition, a vehicle, a FAMILY of four. 15 years later, she works as a legal attorney at one of the top 5 law firms in America. Now we live very well and we all have the ability to go to college. Even so, my schooling is $22,750 per year and my roommate from NY is already $50,000 deep after 2 years. How free is a society where success and education is determined by money?

This is what our President wants to change! Thats why he doesn't want to cut government assistance to responsible citizens. Many of my very smart friends are still home working a low paying job because their family cant afford to go to college; and this is in a very well off suburban area. Just some of the many reasons I support our President and reject many conservative beliefs to "Pull yourself up by your own boot straps".

[Albino Nega]

To the OP:
http://media.tumblr.com/3aa531f2d37a6fbf141c2936b0e1ab91/tumblr_inline_mjkw9sQHdX1qz4rgp.jpg

I find being a Conservative is in my very nature.
I do not like political correctness.
I also do not fall for Global Warming, Peak Oil or Gun Ban scams.
Besides, I would not want to be a Freakin' liberal like Chuck Swirsky. (http://youtu.be/tWdgAMYjYSs)

[Kandanza]

My family is the product of these "Awful, wasteful government programs to pay bills for the lazy". My mom raised 3 kids as a single parent through college and through law school while dealing with the sudden an tragic death of my dad and receiving NO financial support from her parents for tuition, a vehicle, a FAMILY of four. 15 years later, she works as a legal attorney at one of the top 5 law firms in America. Now we live very well and we all have the ability to go to college. Even so, my schooling is over $10,000 per year and my roommate from NY is already $50,000 deep after 2 years. How free is a society where success and education is determined by money?

You started by saying your mom was able to educate herself and find a good job despite having no money. Then you end by saying success and education are determined by money.

Isn't that a total contradiction - or are you saying it's wrong to pay for schooling?

[naglfari]

To the OP:
image (http://media.tumblr.com/3aa531f2d37a6fbf141c2936b0e1ab91/tumblr_inline_mjkw9sQHdX1qz4rgp.jpg)

I find being a Conservative is in my very nature.
I do not like political correctness.
I also do not fall for Global Warming, Peak Oil or Gun Ban scams.
Besides, I would not want to be a Freakin' liberal like Chuck Swirsky. (http://youtu.be/tWdgAMYjYSs)

so you're an idiot. i mean really, global warming? every scientist in the world just happens to be lying?

and yeah, lets not do background checks on guns so that any mental patient can get ar-15 that makes perfect sense.

[Albino Nega]

so you're an idiot. i mean really, global warming? every scientist in the world just happens to be lying?

and yeah, lets not do background checks on guns so that any mental patient can get ar-15 that makes perfect sense.
1. Global Warming is a myth.
Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8Cover the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").

There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.
Source: Ten Myths of Global Warming (http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/)

2. You've been playing too many video games. If you ban guns, criminals (some of which are mentally insane) will find a way get them anyways. Just look at the diaries of Dylan Kleboid and Eric Harris, gun laws wouldnt have prevented them from getting guns. I don't know about you but, if im getting robbed at gunpoint I want to be able to stop it as quickly as possible.

3. Just because somebody doesnt agree with you, they are an idiot? Classic liberal defense.

[TurboDieselBandit]

You started by saying your mom was able to educate herself and find a good job despite having no money. Then you end by saying success and education are determined by money.

Isn't that a total contradiction - or are you saying it's wrong to pay for schooling?

Without government assistance, higher education would have been completely out of reach for financial reasons. Higher education shouldn't be a luxury for the few that can afford it. If America is truly the land of opportunity where you can make it if you try, anyone willing to work hard should have access to higher education, even if they don't have $40,000 set aside for school.

[Kandanza]

Without government assistance, higher education would have been completely out of reach for financial reasons. Higher education shouldn't be a luxury for the few that can afford it. If America is truly the land of opportunity where you can make it if you try, anyone willing to work hard should have access to higher education, even if they don't have $40,000 set aside for school.

OK I agree with that. Although fair to say more money might buy you a better education.

Do you think the majority of conservatives would deny education to poor people?

[naglfari]

1. Global Warming is a myth.
Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8Cover the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").

There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.
Source: Ten Myths of Global Warming (http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/)


2. You've been playing too many video games. If you ban guns, criminals (some of which are mentally insane) will find a way get them anyways. Just look at the diaries of Dylan Kleboid and Eric Harris, gun laws wouldnt have prevented them from getting guns. I don't know about you but, if im getting robbed at gunpoint I want to be able to stop it as quickly as possible.

3. Just because somebody doesnt agree with you, they are an idiot? Classic liberal defense.

criminals can get guns illegally because they're so easy to get legally. what harm would background checks do at all?

and as for your global warming thing... lol. do you just believe anything you read? you won't find a scientist anywhere who doesn't believe global warming is real. but some conservative bloggers lie a bunch to try to discredit what everyone knows to be true. it's just like how conservatives used to try and say tobacco didn't cause cancer and how there was no proof cigarettes and cancer were linked.

you can disagree with me on all sorts of things and i wont call you an idiot.

but if you think global warming is a myth, or that evolution isn't real, or that any country is better off with no government, you ARE an idiot.

[Albino Nega]

criminals can get guns illegally because they're so easy to get legally. what harm would background checks do at all?

and as for your global warming thing... lol. do you just believe anything you read? you won't find a scientist anywhere who doesn't believe global warming is real. but some conservative bloggers lie a bunch to try to discredit what everyone knows to be true. it's just like how conservatives used to try and say tobacco didn't cause cancer and how there was no proof cigarettes and cancer were linked.

you can disagree with me on all sorts of things and i wont call you an idiot.

but if you think global warming is a myth, or that evolution isn't real, or that any country is better off with no government, you ARE an idiot.
Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet, do you believe that?
Global Warming IS a myth the Arctic is currently having a record refreeze. (chart (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2000/11/Figure3.png))
Last year, didn't Europe have one of the coldest winters in the last 100 years?
Remember the Democratic party is the one that supported slavery.
Government is necessary, but should be smaller.

[naglfari]

Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet, do you believe that?
Global Warming IS a myth the Arctic is currently having a record refreeze. (chart (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2000/11/Figure3.png))
Last year, didn't Europe have one of the coldest winters in the last 100 years?
Remember the Democratic party is the one that supported slavery.
Government is necessary, but should be smaller.

dixiecrats supported slavery. they were conservatives. ever since the civil rights movement the republican party has been the one full of racists, because it was the democratic party that back african american rights.

and please, try finding one credible source for saying global warming isn't real. like, actual scientists, not your fake conservative blog shit

[Albino Nega]

dixiecrats supported slavery. they were conservatives. ever since the civil rights movement the republican party has been the one full of racists, because it was the democratic party that back african american rights.
and please, try finding one credible source for saying global warming isn't real. like, actual scientists, not your fake conservative blog shit
http://nsidc.org/ (popoponon.blogspot.com) isn't a credible source? It's full of those scientists you love so much.
Yeah democrats aren't racist? 0bama was elected solely on his race by people who think like you.

[naglfari]

http://nsidc.org/ (popoponon.blogspot.com) isn't a credible source? It's full of those scientists you love so much.
Yeah democrats aren't racist? 0bama was elected solely on his race by people who think like you.

see that would be a good example of racism on your part. 'he only won because hes black'. I think it has more to do with 1) bush was terrible and everyone remembers that, 2) he runs campaigns well and 3) romney and ryan were out of their minds and republicans are such extremists right now that they only have a 25% approval rating. republicans didn't just lose the presidency, they lost senators and they would have lost the house too if they hadn't gerrymandered in 2010. they shouldn't have any control over any level of the federal government right now, but they cheated.

and that link you sent me is full of scientists saying global warming is real and is a serious problem lol. are you even able to read?

[Albino Nega]

see that would be a good example of racism on your part. 'he only won because hes black'. I think it has more to do with 1) bush was terrible and everyone remembers that, 2) he runs campaigns well and 3) romney and ryan were out of their minds and republicans are such extremists right now that they only have a 25% approval rating. republicans didn't just lose the presidency, they lost senators and they would have lost the house too if they hadn't gerrymandered in 2010. they shouldn't have any control over any level of the federal government right now, but they cheated.

and that link you sent me is full of scientists saying global warming is real and is a serious problem lol. are you even able to read?
1.) Oh yes, blame Bush (while 0bama runs this country into the ground) except people who think like you also re-elected 0bama using the race card.
2.) All he offers are empty promises to the sheeple who eat it all up.
3.) Romney was an excellent candidate and the liberal media tried all they could to slander him. Not to mention election fraud done by democrats.

Meanwhile, unemployment goes up and you libs fall for the same things over and over. Enjoy 0bamacare sucker.

If Global Warming is real, why do they need to manipulate data to make their studies seem true to the uninformed like you?
Why did Al Gore use Global Warming to launch his political career and also lie about being the father of the internet?

[naglfari]

what are you even talking about lol. there was no election fraud. funny you mention that since romney's campaign and republicans everywhere were actively trying to suppress black voters

anyway, yeah bush is to blame for the bush tax cuts which are still the biggest source of deficit today, followed by the wars he started, so yeah he is to blame for our rising debt. but the point i was making was bush was such an incredibly unpopular president that the democrats had a huge advantage in 2008

i mean, it's pretty clear you just don't have even the remotest clue what you're talking about. you have no facts on your side, at all. you just spew bullshit. you need to get your facts straight, if you're not living in reality then your opinion is worthless.

[Albino Nega]

what are you even talking about lol. there was no election fraud. funny you mention that since romney's campaign and republicans everywhere were actively trying to suppress black voters

anyway, yeah bush is to blame for the bush tax cuts which are still the biggest source of deficit today, followed by the wars he started, so yeah he is to blame for our rising debt. but the point i was making was bush was such an incredibly unpopular president that the democrats had a huge advantage in 2008

i mean, it's pretty clear you just don't have even the remotest clue what you're talking about. you have no facts on your side, at all. you just spew bullshit. you need to get your facts straight, if you're not living in reality then your opinion is worthless.
Show me proof of Romney's campaign trying to suppress black voters. Look at the ACORN (Democratic organization) voter frauds (source from the liberal media itself: www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkUKOSnv2zY). You're the one spewing the bullshit....just look blaming Bush when he hasn't been in office for YEARS and 0bama has had plenty of time to fix it. None of the guy's promises hold up and if you can't see that then you're on some good stuff.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

I do see that. Because people are STUPID as FUCK???

[Harry Smith]

Show me proof of Romney's campaign trying to suppress black voters. Look at the ACORN (Democratic organization) voter frauds (source from the liberal media itself: www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkUKOSnv2zY). You're the one spewing the bullshit....just look blaming Bush when he hasn't been in office for YEARS and 0bama has had plenty of time to fix it. None of the guy's promises hold up and if you can't see that then you're on some good stuff.

Haha yeah Obama brought the election, christ he would have to be pretty stupid if he did that when Romney was virtually driving himself into the ground. What did he say again about the 47% of Americans? Firstly Obama has had the very difficult issue of not having control of Congress since 2010. A lot of politicians make promises on the campaign trail. Also you saying that crap about the race card is stupid, do you reckon as many blacks and hispanics would have voted for Hermain Cain because he was black.

I'll leave you with a JFK qoute about his Catholicism- 'I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.”

The same idea can be implemented for Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9njHHyRI7g Also a very good Mitt Romney Flip flop video

[naglfari]

Show me proof of Romney's campaign trying to suppress black voters. Look at the ACORN (Democratic organization) voter frauds (source from the liberal media itself: www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkUKOSnv2zY). You're the one spewing the bullshit....just look blaming Bush when he hasn't been in office for YEARS and 0bama has had plenty of time to fix it. None of the guy's promises hold up and if you can't see that then you're on some good stuff.

you know what fixing bush's mistakes would be? raising taxes back to what they were, but the house won't budge on it even though its destroying our economy.

anyway, that acorn thing was from 2008 and it was a few people trying to make their quota for registering names, but they registered people who dont exist or were dead so they wouldnt have showed up anyway. and cnn is hardly liberal, they sit in the center as much as they possibly can.

meanwhile in 2012, did you miss all the voter id laws republicans suddenly cared about?

[Albino Nega]

Haha yeah Obama brought the election, christ he would have to be pretty stupid if he did that when Romney was virtually driving himself into the ground. What did he say again about the 47% of Americans? Firstly Obama has had the very difficult issue of not having control of Congress since 2010. A lot of politicians make promises on the campaign trail. Also you saying that crap about the race card is stupid, do you reckon as many blacks and hispanics would have voted for Hermain Cain because he was black.

I'll leave you with a JFK qoute about his Catholicism- 'I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.”

The same idea can be implemented for Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9njHHyRI7g Also a very good Mitt Romney Flip flop video
They called Herman Cain an "Uncle Tom"

[Harry Smith]

They called Herman Cain an "Uncle Tom"

haha way to ingore 95% of my argument. Back to Herman Cain are you telling me that a member of the Tea Party would be able like President Obama did in 2012 to win 93% of the Black vote, 71% of the Hispanic vote and 73% of the Asian Vote purely because he belongs to a minority?

A nice little Snipet about Herman Cain here...

''A number of comments made by Cain regarding his attitudes toward Muslims have caused controversy, such as two cases in which he expressed his distrust of the doctors treating his cancer when he believed them to be Muslim, including one who had a "too foreign name", and his relief upon discovery that the doctor was a Christian''

[naglfari]

They called Herman Cain an "Uncle Tom"

an uncle tom is someone of a minority who sides with their oppressors so yeah that'd be an accurate description

[xmojox]

I asked for definitions earlier in this thread, and nobody responded. By conservative do you mean socially conservative? Fiscally conservative? Both, neither, or simply republican? I'd ask the same about the term liberal.

Something interesting I've noticed in this thread...the media always seems to be controlled by the other side. Just an observation.

[Harry Smith]

I asked for definitions earlier in this thread, and nobody responded. By conservative do you mean socially conservative? Fiscally conservative? Both, neither, or simply republican? I'd ask the same about the term liberal.

Something interesting I've noticed in this thread...the media always seems to be controlled by the other side. Just an observation.

haha that's just the way to dismiss nearly every single source that either side presents, just claim it's a puppet media station that the other party paid for

[xmojox]

And regarding Al Gore's internet remark...unless my dad told me wrong, he'd been asked about how much he'd used the internet for fundraising. His response was, "I invented the internet." In context It means something entirely different, doesn't it?

[Sugaree]

All this liberal and conservative butthurt. Man OP, you did a great job.

[naglfari]

I asked for definitions earlier in this thread, and nobody responded. By conservative do you mean socially conservative? Fiscally conservative? Both, neither, or simply republican? I'd ask the same about the term liberal.

Something interesting I've noticed in this thread...the media always seems to be controlled by the other side. Just an observation.

it's not both sides. some guys blog isn't a credible news source. cnn and npr are and they're hardly liberal biased.

[Professional Russian]

it's not both sides. some guys blog isn't a credible news source. cnn and npr are and they're hardly liberal biased.

Saying CNN isnt liberal like saying Fox isn't conservative

[xmojox]

it's not both sides. some guys blog isn't a credible news source. cnn and npr are and they're hardly liberal biased.

And still no definitions...

[naglfari]

Saying CNN isnt liberal like saying Fox isn't conservative

no it isn't. msnbc is very liberal. cnn tries so hard to be center that if republicans said the earth was flat and democrats said it was round, cnn would treat them like equally valid viewpoints

And still no definitions...

definitions of what

[xmojox]

I asked for definitions earlier in this thread, and nobody responded. By conservative do you mean socially conservative? Fiscally conservative? Both, neither, or simply republican? I'd ask the same about the term liberal.

Something interesting I've noticed in this thread...the media always seems to be controlled by the other side. Just an observation.

I wasn't asking rhetorically. Conservative and liberal can mean different things to different people. I'm interested to know what they mean to you, as the OP.

[naglfari]

fiscal and social both. the usual US definitions.

[TurboDieselBandit]

OK I agree with that. Although fair to say more money might buy you a better education.

Do you think the majority of conservatives would deny education to poor people?

Not if it doesn't cost them anything, but unfortunately it does which many conservatives don't like. In general, I feel many conservatives tend to be unsympathetic to the plight of others (the poor, minorities, the oppression of others outside our borders) while liberals tend to be the ones fighting for equality, human rights, and helping the common man.

no it isn't. msnbc is very liberal. cnn tries so hard to be center that if republicans said the earth was flat and democrats said it was round, cnn would treat them like equally valid viewpoints

I agree, Fox and msnbc appeal to a subjective audience while CNN is usually objective. Again, I agree with the above.


-double post merged. -Emerald Dream

[Jean Poutine]

I agree, Fox and msnbc appeal to a subjective audience while CNN is usually objective. Again, I agree with the above.

No such thing as objective mass media.

[TurboDieselBandit]

No such thing as objective mass media.

There is such a thing, certainly no mass media is entirely objective in how they report and what they report, however some outlets are more objective than others; and they do exist.

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased
From: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective

Subjective: placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
From: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subjective

[Jean Poutine]

There is such a thing, certainly no mass media is entirely objective in how they report and what they report, however some outlets are more objective than others; and they do exist.

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased
From: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective

Subjective: placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
From: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subjective

More objective doesn't mean objective.

[xmojox]

There is such a thing, certainly no mass media is entirely objective in how they report and what they report, however some outlets are more objective than others; and they do exist.

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased
From: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective

Subjective: placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
From: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subjective

What are these objective mass media news outlets please? I get sick of checking 3 or 4 sources....

[Bethany]

What are these objective mass media news outlets please? I get sick of checking 3 or 4 sources....

BBC tries to stay objective. al-Jazeera is also fairly good on most news stories - through it does have a bit of slant on some Mideast issues (prefers Syrian opposition over Syrian government, Palestine over Israel, etc).

I don't know any objective US-centered news outlets, unfortunately.

[xmojox]

BBC tries to stay objective. al-Jazeera is also fairly good on most news stories - through it does have a bit of slant on some Mideast issues (prefers Syrian opposition over Syrian government, Palestine over Israel, etc).

I don't know any objective US-centered news outlets, unfortunately.

I use BBC a lot, and I agree it's largely objective. I've never used al-Jazeera.

[Bethany]

I use BBC a lot, and I agree it's largely objective. I've never used al-Jazeera.

al-Jazeera is pretty good on covering ALL regions, not hyping up events unnecessarily, and getting the main points across easily.

Does anyone know of any objective news sources that focus on American news? I use al-Jazeera and BBC for international, but it's hard to find good, unbiased news focusing on US news.

[TurboDieselBandit]

More objective doesn't mean objective.

Agreed, I don't believe thats what I was arguing nor suggesting. :)

[crepesuzette]

yeah their ideas are so outdated and not compatible with modern day thinking. it's like my math teacher says,"Get out of the middle ages, come join us in the twenty first century."

[BpOlson]

Grayregrets quoted it correct. We want low taxes, limited government, strong defense. I don't want the governement to provide anything for me except national defense. I don't want social security/medicare/obamacare/welfare/food stamps or anything of the sort. I want to take care of myself and my family. And I don't want to support other people through those programs.

Social issues like gay marriage, guns, abortion shouldn't even be federal issues. The federal government has no business telling individuals whether or not they can own guns, have abortions, or who they can marry. They should just stay out of it and leave people alone.

I would say it's dumb to be a liberal. Why do you want the government to provide everything for everyone, to take from some people and give to another, to regulate what companies can and can't do and how you live your life? Can't you take responsibility for yourself?

The great thing about America is that you have the freedom to try and succeed and the freedom to fail or the freedom to do nothing. But if you do nothing or fail, nobody owes you anything because of it.

I just want to be left alone to make my own choices and be responsible and accountable for them 100% myself!

Way to take the words out of my mouth.

[ShaneSawyer]

Although I do agree that social issues should be left out of the federal govt. I do not agree with your whole not supporting other people. I think it is important to have things like food stamps and other federal aid in this country because some people are born less fortunate than you. My mom for instance would not be able to feed me if it wasn't for food stamps. And I probably wouldn't be able to pay for college w/o FAFSA. And I think it is vital to regulate what companies can and cannot due, because if it were up to most of them, they would use the cheapest and sometimes harmful materials and expell toxic waste and whatnot an that's no good.
I think it is stupid to support either of the two parties in play today because it's always the same ol shit, on social issues ever change with them, not the important things... And it's fucking rediculous that we spend more than half of every tax dollar on defense. And we send billions of dollars to Israel every week. Its retarded.

[Taurus]

Why are people conservatives? Because people are paranoid, selfish, fascist douchebags.

[PerpetualImperfexion]

Grayregrets quoted it correct. We want low taxes, limited government, strong defense. I don't want the governement to provide anything for me except national defense. I don't want social security/medicare/obamacare/welfare/food stamps or anything of the sort. I want to take care of myself and my family. And I don't want to support other people through those programs.

Social issues like gay marriage, guns, abortion shouldn't even be federal issues. The federal government has no business telling individuals whether or not they can own guns, have abortions, or who they can marry. They should just stay out of it and leave people alone.

I would say it's dumb to be a liberal. Why do you want the government to provide everything for everyone, to take from some people and give to another, to regulate what companies can and can't do and how you live your life? Can't you take responsibility for yourself?

The great thing about America is that you have the freedom to try and succeed and the freedom to fail or the freedom to do nothing. But if you do nothing or fail, nobody owes you anything because of it.

I just want to be left alone to make my own choices and be responsible and accountable for them 100% myself!

Quite possibly the best post I have ever had the pleasure of reading.

[Professional Russian]

Why are people conservatives? Because people are paranoid, selfish, fascist douchebags.

So I'm a fascist douchebag? Thanks

[Taurus]

So I'm a fascist douchebag? Thanks

Socially conservative or politically conservative?

[Professional Russian]

Socially conservative or politically conservative?

Somewhere in between

[Taurus]

Somewhere in between

If you are socially conservative, we won't get along.

[Lisa Monroe]

studies show that the weak people tend to be liberals because they believe in fairness and making sure everyone has the same things which sounds good but then you have no freedom. liberals are morons who think gun crimes will stop when they ban guns. they will give the national numebr of gun related deaths last year in america but wont tell you that most come from high gun control areas. liberals are ruining this country and you are an idiot for believing their BS

[Stronk Serb]

You sound like a communist. Wanting to distribute money equally


I would fight or the betterment of the lower classes. But communism in America? Umad? Never gonna happen. The highest layers in the US have financially grown for 300%. The regukar workers' wages have dropped for 5% I think, and thepeople who work as janitors and do jobs similar to that had their wages lowered for a 30%. That is what I heard, so do not take it as completely true about the percentage, but the higher classes got more money at the expense of the lower classes.

[ollyollyoxenfree]

Grayregrets quoted it correct. We want low taxes, limited government, strong defense. I don't want the governement to provide anything for me except national defense. I don't want social security/medicare/obamacare/welfare/food stamps or anything of the sort. I want to take care of myself and my family. And I don't want to support other people through those programs.

Social issues like gay marriage, guns, abortion shouldn't even be federal issues. The federal government has no business telling individuals whether or not they can own guns, have abortions, or who they can marry. They should just stay out of it and leave people alone.

I would say it's dumb to be a liberal. Why do you want the government to provide everything for everyone, to take from some people and give to another, to regulate what companies can and can't do and how you live your life? Can't you take responsibility for yourself?

The great thing about America is that you have the freedom to try and succeed and the freedom to fail or the freedom to do nothing. But if you do nothing or fail, nobody owes you anything because of it.

I just want to be left alone to make my own choices and be responsible and accountable for them 100% myself!

I could not have said this any better myself.

[Stronk Serb]

You sound like a communist. Wanting to distribute money equally

It takes an advanced human mind to live like a communist. When people cal me 'commie', 'red' etc. I take it as a compliment. Why wouldn't we mentally evolve where we would not care about personal wealth, where we would be equal in wealth.

Our country may be small, but many people have tried to dismiss us based on that. Hitler tried it in 1939 and he fought he could crush us but we stood tall. Don't make the arrogant mistake of underestimating Britain. We had the Biggest empire in the history of the world. Don't dismiss Britain- it was pretty much our army which helped you get ohio, we've fought shoulder to shoulder since 1917. Don't Dismiss us as a small country.

Totally agree. The Brits are a hardy people. Hell, you controlled 25% of total landmass at some point

You stood tall *chuckles* because we were sending supplies to you guys. You guys would've been destroyed without our support. The Spanish empire was the biggest.

You did nothing with ohio. you were defending it from the french. It was pretty much our army that helped you from being destroyed from Germany and Italy.

Most wealthy people don't want to live in your country because of your socialism. So it's basically middle class supporting middle class/lower class.

I did not know Spitfires and Hurricanes were made in the US. *sarcasm*

That statement is completely untrue. We got involved because we had actually had an international moral compass. We fought the battle of Britain with Spitfires and Hurricanes, made in Britain. We used Radio towers made in Britain and we used pilots that we from Britain and the commonwealth. We fought hard for two years without you. Look at Kasserine pass- a good example of how the US army. Why do yanks always think we fought badly in ww2, we were there for 6 years and the british people were prepared to take us arms and take on with us if the German's landed.

The 'socialist' element of our government- the NHS saved my life.

UK is mostly capitalistic with socialist elements. A good combination for now. We will se what the socio-economic happenings will do.

Lol far from..

I was just saying that the war was won cause of us.

Oh really? So you kicked the Nazis out of Russia and planted the US flag on the Reichstag? You just brought the war in Europe to a quicker end and defeated the Japanese. Maybe without your interventions the Allies could've barely won the war, Since after the Khalkin Gol incident, the Soviets and the Japanese signed a neutrality treaty. The Japanese might have honored it, but who knows what would happen then. Yet you did help a lot, especially against the Japanese.

ok so. I have a big problem with this.

1) 80% of people on welfare, on foodstamps specifically, are working. 70% working full time. they aren't lazy, they're stuck at dead end jobs and without education opportunities or the ability to spend money on anything other than food, they'll be stuck in poverty forever, no matter what they do.

2) every country runs on taxes. if you want to live in america and benefit from all the opportunity it does provide you, you have to pay the price for living here.

3) the economy and the country works a lot better with progressive taxes. what a lot of you are talking about is wanting a federal government with no power. a federal government with no power is no federal government. which means this is no longer a democracy. you'd basically be turning america into a country totally controlled by corporations who can exploit everyone.

Totally agree.

[britishboy]

It takes an advanced human mind to live like a communist. When people cal me 'commie', 'red' etc. I take it as a compliment. Why wouldn't we mentally evolve where we would not care about personal wealth, where we would be equal in wealth.



Totally agree. The Brits are a hardy people. Hell, you controlled 25% of total landmass at some point



I did not know Spitfires and Hurricanes were made in the US. *sarcasm*



UK is mostly capitalistic with socialist elements. A good combination for now. We will se what the socio-economic happenings will do.



Oh really? So you kicked the Nazis out of Russia and planted the US flag on the Reichstag? You just brought the war in Europe to a quicker end and defeated the Japanese. Maybe without your interventions the Allies could've barely won the war, Since after the Khalkin Gol incident, the Soviets and the Japanese signed a neutrality treaty. The Japanese might have honored it, but who knows what would happen then. Yet you did help a lot, especially against the Japanese.



Totally agree.

I agree with everything you said... thats a first:D normally we disagree:p

[Stronk Serb]

I agree with everything you said... thats a first:D normally we disagree:p

I think so. But why would anyone want to make even larger diferences between the rich and the poor. The same thing happened in Imperial Russia. The more numerous poor people rose and kicked the nobles out. To give you a hint about the noble's riches, a count probably had a land the size of Vojvodina region in Serbia (25,000-30,000 square kilometers) and used probably 30% if it as agricultural surfaces, and peasants worked for him for free because they were forced to. No matter how much money you would earn by selling the harvests and livestock, you could not spend it, only on insanely expensive grand castles and crystal eggs and change the money into gold and hoard it. There are worker protection laws, but in a more capitalist society, will they be valid?

[Hyper]

Well conservatism has many interpertations...

I find myself being somewhere in the middle of liberalism and conservatism.

I do think that ideology itself is rather used as a tool of mass manipulation. The US seems to be the best example of how a seperate topic can be completely overshadowed by a labeling ideology.

[tovaris]

Dont know, just today i wached a croud of them burst into tears on TV as their political leder was sentinced to two years + money. Just dont get them so... what can i say... blind?