So What Do Conservatives Actually Want to Conserve?

[Jmpty]

Also, do you think liberals aren't racist?

I know that there are racist liberals. I just don't know any personally.

[commonsense822]

Historically what has conservatism  and conservatives given us?
The Great Depression
The great Recession
Royalist tyrrany
Religious tyrrany
Genocide
Racism
Slavery
Revisionist history
Pseudo-science
Homophobia
Chavenism
The Crusades
War on the laborer/worker
War on women
War on individual freedom/rights
War on gays
War on all people of color
Monopolies
Corporate corruption/crimanilty
more guns than any society needs
pollution
poison water/land and air
Faux News=propaganda
NAZIs
Facist
As far as "over-generalization" goes, the question ASKED for a generalization. You can't ask for an answer that could nothing but sterotypical and then complain when you get it.
EXAMPLE: What do conservatives actually do?
The only answer is a generalization and a characterization.
So if I generalized I fulfilled the requirement. When I described "conservatives" it is an description derived from the historic and present day actions of the ideology. Since the only political party named "conservative" exist in Great Britian, we have to refer to an ideology not a group of actual individuals, which exactly what I did.

You're really letting a blind hatred towards conservatism skew your thinking here man.  You sound like the lib version of Alex Jones.  Calm it down.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Also, do you think liberals aren't racist?

I know that there are racist liberals. I just don't know any personally.

Fair enough.  I've met plenty, myself.

Stupidity crosses party lines.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You know, saying things like "nope" and "that's just silly" is not really responding to the points that were brought up.

It is the appropriate way to respond to a Gish Gallop.

[Atheon]

They want to conserve ignorance, bigotry, and the privileges of an elite few.

[Atheon]

Also, do you think liberals aren't racist?

I know that there are racist liberals. I just don't know any personally.

I have met a handful of racist "liberals", but I wouldn't call them real liberals. Racism is antithetical to the ideals of liberalism, which include the equality and dignity of all human beings.

[Jmpty]

You know, saying things like "nope" and "that's just silly" is not really responding to the points that were brought up.

It is the appropriate way to respond to a Gish Gallop.

I think the difference is that Gish never had any valid points to make. There are several valid points here that were not responded to.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I have met a handful of racist "liberals", but I wouldn't call them real liberals. Racism is antithetical to the ideals of liberalism, which include the equality and dignity of all human beings.

No True Scotsman spotted.

I think the difference is that Gish never had any valid points to make. There are several valid points here that were not responded to.

He laid on about thirty at once.    That is exactly what makes his rhetoric a Gish Gallop: he's laying on the volume in order to quell detailed response.

Each one of his points could support a thread of discussion, pro and con.  But trying to jam them all onto one point in one post and then demand they each be answered in detail is horseshit.  

I responded to one point, but mykcob4 didn't see fit to answer.

[...]
NAZIs

Equating conservatism with NaZiism is nonsense, just as much as if I were to equate leftism with murderous Socialism which brought humanity things like GULags and reeducation camps. Indeed, if you compare death tolls, the latter have bloodier hands.  Hitler was a radical, not a conservative, as anyone who has studied a little history knows.

His absence of a reply doesn't make it appear that he really want to discuss his own points.

[Alaric I]

You know, saying things like "nope" and "that's just silly" is not really responding to the points that were brought up.

It is the appropriate way to respond to a Gish Gallop.

I think the difference is that Gish never had any valid points to make. There are several valid points here that were not responded to.

You are correct, and if he had decided to make those valid points and not bury them a pile of horseshit then I would write a thought out detailed response.

[Plu]

The only problem I have with conservatism is that it strives for tradition in a world changing faster than ever before. Conservatives tend to have a bit more issues with rethinking situations and to come up with new ways of dealing with things that we have a current (but no longer very effective, or simply not the most effective) way of dealing with.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Hoover wasn't the entire problem and I didn't lay the entire blame of the depression on him. I blamed the conservatives.
As far as the rest of your post trying to say that the racism and the rest is antient history, well you'd be wrong about that. Conservatives are just as racist as they always were now and back in the 60's (1800&1900), they just don't get away with it as much.
Just because YOU don't agree doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. I know full well what I am talking about. BTW FOX is PURE propaganda. MSNBC does flat out lie about things. They may favor the Liberal point of you, but they don't need to lie to acheive a favorable story.
Pollution, you think that is "silly!" The fact is that conservatives have fought tooth and nail to keep from have ANY pollution laws or regulation. So it isn't silly it's a fact that the pollution that we suffer from today is a direct result of conservatives defying and fighting pollution laws. Global Warming is a scientific fact, and it's cause is mostly manmade, but conservatives have engaged in propaganda using lies and pseudo-science to sway the public away from laws of responsibility. So it isn't at all "silly!"
The fact is EVERYTHING I staed is true and perfectly describes the ideology of conservatives. Just saying "Nope" doesn't eliviate that fact!

Yeah I think you'd get a good career of speaking out of your arse.

[BarkAtTheMoon]

Genocide

When and Where? Because I'm pretty sure Obama is using unmanned drones to kill hundreds (and still rising) instrikes in Pakistan.

 :-? Did you really just equate genocide to drone attacks during a war? WTF?

The absurdity of arguments about drone strikes seemingly has no bounds.

[Alaric I]

The only problem I have with conservatism is that it strives for tradition in a world changing faster than ever before. Conservatives tend to have a bit more issues with rethinking situations and to come up with new ways of dealing with things that we have a current (but no longer very effective, or simply not the most effective) way of dealing with.

And liberals have issues with trying to change things too much, which is why somewhere in the middle is best.  Yes we need to make chages, no we don't need to try to be so bleeding heart that we shift the balance the other way.

[Plu]

The only time there's a problem with changing something is if the outcome isn't an improvement.

Of course, people aren't going to be in favor so it is somewhere in the middle. More because of people than because of a problem with changing things for the better, though.

[Alaric I]

Genocide

When and Where? Because I'm pretty sure Obama is using unmanned drones to kill hundreds (and still rising) instrikes in Pakistan.

 :-? Did you really just equate genocide to drone attacks during a war? WTF?

The absurdity of arguments about drone strikes seemingly has no bounds.

Sure he isn't rounding people up and sticking them in gas chambers, but the willy-nilly way he uses them is killing off a lot of people that he shouldn't.  The way you state this you seem to be so far in love in with the guy that he can't do no wrong.