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.
A couple of things to understand about conservatives...first, yes, we believe in personal responsibility and generally do not want the government to stick its nose where it doesn't belong. However, we also believe that our society was built upon a bedrock of specific beliefs and values. So while we will tend towards freedom and liberty, we also don't want to see our society fall to pieces. It is a difficult balance to keep.
I can generally work it out personally by saying leave it up to the states...abortion, gun rights, group-specific rights, etc, just leave it up to the states.
A couple of things to understand about conservatives...first, yes, we believe in personal responsibility and generally do not want the government to stick its nose where it doesn't belong. However, we also believe that our society was built upon a bedrock of specific beliefs and values. So while we will tend towards freedom and liberty, we also don't want to see our society fall to pieces. It is a difficult balance to keep.
I can generally work it out personally by saying leave it up to the states...abortion, gun rights, group-specific rights, etc, just leave it up to the states.
It's just that the rest of us don't specifically share your beliefs and values... and attempting to restrict consentual action among adults is an infringement upon liberty at its most basic level.
It's just that the rest of us don't specifically share your beliefs and values... and attempting to restrict consentual action among adults is an infringement upon liberty at its most basic level.
Agreed. I'm even tolerant enough of moral conservativeness to concede that I don't care about same-sex marriage one way or another. If a nationwide ban on same-sex marriage materializes, then so be it. However, I have yet to find an argument against same-sex civil unions that was NOT based upon one's own personal religious preferences (or prejudices more often than not), which should NOT be a basis for legislation. This is most certainly an example of conservatives meddling around in the private affairs of others, which is the same argument many give to denounce liberals.
If you're going to tell me that I can't join the one I love in a civil union, then at least back it up with something better than "God wouldn't want it that way." Even if he didn't, I'm more than prepared to cross that gauntlet on my Judgment Day. Who are conservatives to say I can't have this right to do myself wrong when I'm harming nobody else in the process? It's a civil union, not mass genocide.
How Do Conservatives View America’s Domestic Problems?...Problems? What Problems?
At any given time several threads deal with certain domestic situations (healthcare, jobs, economy, employment, immigration, etc).
Following the posts by conservatives I have compiled a brief summary of how conservatives respond:
*everything in America is going just great. All those who disagree are America haters and should move to other countries.
*everything in America is going just great. It’s the liberal media (that evil, sinister “liberal agenda”) that wants to see America fail.
*if any problems exist, all problems are caused by liberals, minorities, or non-citizens.
*various statistics, facts and figures to give America a low ranking in any public services compared to other modern nations are done by conspirative America-hating groups. All such findings and studies should be wholly rejected as worthless anti-American propaganda.
*there are only two ways to do everything in the universe; the conservative way or the wrong way.
Problems? What problems?
I would say you have a pretty good grasp of the situation!
There is a basic fundamental difference to problem solving between Liberals and Conservatives. Liberals want the Gov't to solve peoples problems, while Republicans push for personal responsibility. Given that the Gov't is pretty lacking in problem solving, but very good at spending my tax dollars on fruitless attempts in said problem solving, the choice is easy for me.
It's just that the rest of us don't specifically share your beliefs and values... and attempting to restrict consentual action among adults is an infringement upon liberty at its most basic level.
Well, you can't just expect us to sit back and watch as everything we believe in is destroyed, can you?
Anyway, no one is attempting to restrict consentual behavior...all but the hardest core of the religious fundamentalists would concede that who you bang is not for the government to regulate.
However, when it comes to certain things, yes, we think that a more traditional attitude is not only "right", but beneficial to the country. One man and one woman raising their children is better for our country, regardless of the religious implications.
Having said that, if it were up to me, there would be no federal laws regarding marriage; it would be totally left up to the state. I don't support the marriage amendment to the Constitution. If California wants to legalize marriage of any kind, fine. Then you can go live there and be happy and leave the rest of us alone. I just wish we could get the same courtesy...if Georgia wants to have very relaxed gun laws, don't go crying to the federal government to pass more gun control at that level...let us in Georgia do what we want to do, and you do what you want to do in California.
Ah the idea of states mandating their own laws and regulations. So apealing and it makes sense as well. The idea that states also be responsible for more of their own issues.
Louisianna? New Orleans?
Not to piick on them but damn. A state should not only know and understand its problems best but should also be the most proactive in their resolution of the problems. Not wait for the fed to force them to fix the problems.
Federal dollars paying for a walking track? If its that important to the community let them do fund raisers and finace the project themselves. I wonder how much it would cost then?
Pork it seems knows no limits.
Well, you can't just expect us to sit back and watch as everything we believe in is destroyed, can you?
As long as you don't mind me dictating what you can believe in the privacy of your home, then no. But don't forget that by opening that door, you open it for all to exploit. If you can legislate my morality, then when people that have drastically different beliefs dominate the voting bloc in this country, they too can shove their morals down your throat.
Quote:
Anyway, no one is attempting to restrict consentual behavior...all but the hardest core of the religious fundamentalists would concede that who you bang is not for the government to regulate.
What about indecency regulated by the FCC? Or for the other side of the room, what about allowing smoking in a restaurant or bar that I own?
Quote:
However, when it comes to certain things, yes, we think that a more traditional attitude is not only "right", but beneficial to the country. One man and one woman raising their children is better for our country, regardless of the religious implications.
It's been discussed on other threads, so I won't hijack this one. What's most important is to have loving parents... their gender, race, or religion is irrelevant in the end. I can understand the apprehension... but talk to anyone who wants to adopt and you'll get a new perspective on the entire situation.
Quote:
Having said that, if it were up to me, there would be no federal laws regarding marriage; it would be totally left up to the state. I don't support the marriage amendment to the Constitution. If California wants to legalize marriage of any kind, fine. Then you can go live there and be happy and leave the rest of us alone. I just wish we could get the same courtesy...if Georgia wants to have very relaxed gun laws, don't go crying to the federal government to pass more gun control at that level...let us in Georgia do what we want to do, and you do what you want to do in California.
I agree completely... it, as well as other issues brought up here are state issues. Now if we want to talk about how I would feel on a state level, I'd sing the same tune.... stay out of my bedroom and wallet. On the local level, stay out of my bedroom, and I'll open my wallet.
But you're exactly right... if CA wishes to legalize all drugs, go for it... if TX wants to legalize just mj, sounds good. Making these decisions on a local level allows the community to legislate morality if it chooses, and makes it easier for people to change these ordinances when they become draconian.
As long as you don't mind me dictating what you can believe in the privacy of your home, then no. But don't forget that by opening that door, you open it for all to exploit. If you can legislate my morality, then when people that have drastically different beliefs dominate the voting bloc in this country, they too can shove their morals down your throat.
Haven't I already said that nobody cares what you do when you keep it to yourself? Nobody cares who you bang in your bedroom and nobody is trying to make laws about about two consenting adults.
But let's talk about shoving morals down throats...isn't that what happens the other way around, too? Gay pride parades, putting gay characters on tv, making hate crime legislation, forcing schools to teach alternative lifestyles to 2nd graders...it works both ways, doesn't it? Part of the issue a lot of people have with the some of the lefty causes is the in-your-face attitude they have. It's not enough that we leave them alone...it has to be thrown in our faces. Nobody likes in-your-face Christianity, right? Well, nobody likes in-your-face anything, whether it's gays, Christians, or whatever.
That's one of the differences between true conservatives and the left...true conservatives may not agree with you, but they will pretty much leave you alone if you leave them alone. The left is not content with that...if there is anyone out there that disagrees, they must be converted or destroyed. Look no further than the Boy Scouts for examples of that...the left and ACLU have done everything they can to destroy the Scouts because they exclude gays and/or girls...why?
Quote:
What about indecency regulated by the FCC? Or for the other side of the room, what about allowing smoking in a restaurant or bar that I own?
Yeah, because the FCC has really cleaned up TV, hasn't it?
And if I recall, smoking bans are generally a left thing, not a right thing.
Quote:
It's been discussed on other threads, so I won't hijack this one. What's most important is to have loving parents... their gender, race, or religion is irrelevant in the end. I can understand the apprehension... but talk to anyone who wants to adopt and you'll get a new perspective on the entire situation.
Nature has provided us with two genders to have kids...just makes sense to me. And I'll have to look later, but I'm pretty sure most studies will show mom + dad = best environment for kids.
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.
