Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As a conservative, I can say I admire a lot of things about the left, I just don't agree with their way of solving it. They do seem to care a lot about the enviroment, and I'm a big supporter of cleaning up our waterways and the air we breathe. I don't agree with them on the global warming agenda. They seem to care a lot about the sick, elderly, and downtrodden, and I think its very important to take care of all of those in need. I just don't agree with making all of these supports into government programs.
So while I may make some criticisms of the left regularly, its typically only the government involvement that I am opposed to most of all. For the last 7 years though, the neocons have become just as bad about trying to fix problems with government (or military). So I'm not very happy with either party at this point. A lot of the ideas the left have I don't have a problem with on a personal level.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Since no time frame was specified:
I think Nixon was the very personification of evil but I think his opening of relations with China was one of the wisest diplomatic moves in US history. Before that I could never understand the apparent attitude of covering our eyes and pretending China didn't exixt.
Funny because I always considered farm subsidies simply, well odd, especially since they now subsidise people to not grow crops, and regulate the cost of milk.
Neither one makes any sense to me. I'd bet if the price of milk was lower, people would choose milk over their $.99 bottle of soda. In a way, the regulation is hurting the milk industry if you ask me.
Given that our population is likely to increase we need to maintain the potential to raise crops and feed our population as well as giving aid to other nations in times of need. Subsidies that keep farms afloat protect our resources from the free market which would easily let all farmland get developed.
pghquest - don't be mistaken about me. I am a Constitutionalist but not a conservative.
I consider the Scandinavian socialism to be the near ideal. There is plenty of room for entrepreneurs, small farmers, big business and a healthcare and social safety net for all. I would be far more inclined to try to own and run a business if I were not risking my and my family’s home and healthcare but only risking my savings and some investors money. Under our system I would be betting the ranch and I am too responsible for my family to do that
Not always do you "bet the ranch".. I started my company while I had a job.. began as a hobby. My startup cost.. literally under $100, probably closer to $40 if I recall.
I will admit though that the type of success that I've seen is rare with such little startup costs. Its now on 4 years strong, and January I begin to see a profit over and above my living expenses and will begin to draw a "paycheck".
Given that our population is likely to increase we need to maintain the potential to raise crops and feed our population as well as giving aid to other nations in times of need. Subsidies that keep farms afloat protect our resources from the free market which would easily let all farmland get developed.
Ironic that we discuss the huge costs of healthcare, and then wonder why people are so unhealthy. You can buy 4 things of soda, vs 1 gallon of milk, and the soda doesnt go bad.
Right now there are farmers getting paid to NOT grow crops.. So tell me why it matters if THOSE farms become developed? Its a complete welfare program for the farmers under the guise that, oooh if we dont protect the farmers, we wont have food.
Well there is no food being produced at those farms where we pay them not to grow, we dont have a lack of food, and for the most part, people here are not starving.
Ironically the first National Parks were set up by that arch liberal Theodore Roosevelt. I am appalled by the attempt to privatize access to the Parks and Forests by the neocons (but they are not conservatives)..
Good point about the parks. Ol' T.R. was quite the outdoorsman.
Also, an excellent point about "neo-"conservatives. After seven years of GWB surrounded by such characters, I can't see much about them that's genuinely conservative at all.
As a conservative, I can say I admire a lot of things about the left, I just don't agree with their way of solving it. They do seem to care a lot about the enviroment, and I'm a big supporter of cleaning up our waterways and the air we breathe. I don't agree with them on the global warming agenda. They seem to care a lot about the sick, elderly, and downtrodden, and I think its very important to take care of all of those in need. I just don't agree with making all of these supports into government programs.
So while I may make some criticisms of the left regularly, its typically only the government involvement that I am opposed to most of all. For the last 7 years though, the neocons have become just as bad about trying to fix problems with government (or military). So I'm not very happy with either party at this point. A lot of the ideas the left have I don't have a problem with on a personal level.
Kudos to you, friend! There is a lot we agree on.
Like many of our liberal friends, I'm all for helping the poor, the sick, and others who can't take care of themselves. I believe that's a moral duty based on the Christian faith, which I profess.
Where I part company with the Left is, I hold that to be a personal obligation, best done within the context of families and local/social/religious networks. I don't think charity should be a function of government.
Also, big dittos on what you said about global warming...
Ironic that we discuss the huge costs of healthcare, and then wonder why people are so unhealthy. You can buy 4 things of soda, vs 1 gallon of milk, and the soda doesnt go bad.
Right now there are farmers getting paid to NOT grow crops.. So tell me why it matters if THOSE farms become developed? Its a complete welfare program for the farmers under the guise that, oooh if we dont protect the farmers, we wont have food.
Well there is no food being produced at those farms where we pay them not to grow, we dont have a lack of food, and for the most part, people here are not starving.
Yo ... not here to debate your words - and also not to assume that what I'm about to say is right - but wanted to put it out there for your consideration:
"Farmers" used to be paid not to grow certain crops so as not to retard the soil - it was to safeguard against starvation and creation of places like "The Dust Bowl" of Oklahoma. The early term was "crop rotation" and it's how the peanut came to be a major economic crop of the south.
Now-a-days, I don't know how many "small farmers" are left. Agri-Biz has taken over so many farms that our politico-economics of the 70's & 80's drove the traditional farmer off of ... and the determination of what gets grown is now simply business.
Here's just a quick example - then I'll turn the thread back to it's original intent: Corn growers of the American heartland held a heavy-duty political sway thru the 30's, 40's and even the 50's - determining several of our political prospects at the presidential level - such as Hoover, Roosevelt (FDR) and Truman ... and sometimes Ike. Their power flagged and we entered "The Oil Years". Now, Corn is King again - and people are growing more than ever - but not for food ... not even for livestock feed ... but for Ethanol - CornGas: So, America's heartland is thriving again ... or about to - while our price for roasting a few ears goes up ... well, it's a toss-up since corn is 14% protein that doesn't get digested well in the first place - are we losing or gaining? I don't know - but I do know that other parts of the country can grow cotton or hemp easier than corn - and both of those can be made into fuel just like corn ... but no effort is being made to increase those markets ... only the CornKing market (not the brand-label, the lobbying front). I'll leave the Blue-Green Algae fuels and it's brighter promise for later.
So, the Heartland is Back - and powerful - but it's not necessarily the traditional American Farmer that benefits - it is the Big-Business Farms that replaced them ... and our table-corn AND our Ethanol are both rising in price.
Thanks for listening. Check it out.
I lean left and admire the right's nice, smooth, normally shaped heads since mine is all pointy.
Oh and their stance on gun control.
Don't forget our potentially frosted tips.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
