So What Do Conservatives Actually Want to Conserve?

[Alaric I]

And the disgusting form of conservatism as it's turned into now hasn't existed for very long in US politics, it really only took off with Dubya getting elected and going utterly butthurt insane when Obama got elected. Reagan would borderline be a Democrat today.

I think both sides are pretty damn disgusting.  Nobody wants to work together anymore and it's driving the country into a deep nasty abyss.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The virtue of the Republicans is that they were never good, they are consistent so there is no cause for surprise when they are bad.

The virtue of the Democrats is that they are honest about how they are bad, so there is no cause for surprise when they are bad.

[Alaric I]

The virtue of the Republicans is that they were never good, they are consistent so there is no cause for surprise when they are bad.

The virtue of the Democrats is that they are honest about how they are bad, so there is no cause for surprise when they are bad.

Hmmmm, I like the sentiment but I think it rings true.  There are quite a few questions to be had on both side when something bad happens.

[commonsense822]

First there is the issue of whether we should be being there at all, and that could be a legitimate discussion.

I think we need to in some way be present over there.  There are terrorists over there, it is a matter of our nation security, and in that case we need to be proactive to prevent future acts of terrorism against American civilians.

Then there is the issue of whether we should be killing terrorist leaders that plan attacks on the US and other countries.  It doesn't strike me as unreasonable to do this, but that could be debated too.

Definitely should.  Like I said....proactive.

Then we have to factor in that terrorists hide in the civilian population and therefore, can not be confronted on the battlefield.  This means that if we are to kill terrorists, there will be collateral damage.

This is where I diverge.  We are not dealing with a standard war, and therefore can't use standard war tactics.  Mainly the killing of civilians.  If we were fighting an actual war against another country I would agree that civilian deaths are an unfortunate reality.  But we are not fighting against a nation, this is war against terrorists with anti-American sentiments.  Killing civilians helps to fill their ranks because we generate more hatred towards ourselves.

We have killed around 2,000 civilians, almost 200 of them children.  That's some 9/11 numbers right there.  The issue with the drone strikes is that they aren't exact, and the tactics we have chosen to use with the drones have been irresponsible.  We use something called signature strikes where essentially if it looks like a gathering of people, we bomb the area.  We've bombed some weddings.  They also use a tactic known as the double tap, in which after bombing an area we turn the drone around and bomb it again just in case.  We have killed 1st responders in a lot of the instances.

If we could make more targeted attacks with actual terrorist locations I would be more in favor of drones.  But right now we are just giving the other civilians over there a reason to join the terrorists.  If someone killed your mother, daughter, uncle, or grandfather it would be likely that you might join in on the group that is exacting revenge upon those that killed them.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So you don't like the ammount of problems that I stated that are inherent with the conservatives. I could list many many more. The fact is that the ideology of conservatism serves only 1% of the population. The people that have all the resourses and don't under any circumstances want to share them. After one generation, no matter how those resourses were aquired the validity of holding on to them is invalid.
To acquire those resourses in the first place the conservatives had to illegally exploit something. Nature, humans, governments etc..., one or more had to be illegally exploited to acquire them. To hold on to those ilgotten gains, the conservatives have to use tactics that are repulsive to society like:
Pitting a race against each other.
Religious idolotry.
Demanding blind obedience.
Revisionist history.
Pseudo-science.
Genocide.
Hatred/fear mongering.
Propaganda.
Take war for example. Throughout history those 1%ers have waged a war to acquire more treasure. They have exploited the ignorant to bleed for them in said wars. They justified those wars with false patriotism. They've used religious idolitry to fire up an ignorant base to wage such wars. They have stoked the fires of prejudice to create a climate of fear and hatred to gain public trust and loyalty for said wars. They have used lies and propaganda to justify their criminality. The latest such effort was the NEOCONS effort to control middleeast oil. A commodity that does nothing but make the rich richer. Blood for oil and it doesn't matter whose blood it is so matter as it isn't the blood of the very rich.
Genocide: The Latin American natives had their culture, language, religion, and lives erracticated to fill the coffers of the rich with gold, to acquire land that wasn't theirs. They called it manifest destiny among other such lies.
In modern times their has been conservatives that have erased the right of workers to bargin collectively even though every CEO can negotiate his/her contract on a collective basis. The call it "right to work" as if you as an individual can only have the right to work if you accept what corrupt corporations will give you. Like it is a priviledge to work, and you have no right to safety, a living wage, benefits of anykind. Yet your labor and produtivity makes them extremely wealthy.
In academia this called the affordable widget theory. Meaning workers must be able to afford the widgets they make, but the corrupt corporations have negated the affordable widget and demand people make products at a wage which would never afford them the product that they produce.
I understand the problems of corporations. They have to make a product that is desired and or needed that can be afforded by the consumer. To make that product they have expenses beyond the raw material and machinery used to make them. They don't want to pay for those expenses. Expenses like labor, benefits, environmental responsibility, safe working conditions, liabilities if the product fails or harms the consumer. Conservatives protect corrupt corporations from penalty or any liability for the things that they should be responsible for. They use propaganda and religious idolotry to enforce that protection.

The problem with dropping thirty or so issues you wish to ascribe to a point-of-view is that you necessarily cut off discussion, becauise no one has the time or energy to address thirty different points made in one post.  That allows unquestioned premises to fly in "under the radar" complete with errors, which is usually the precise purpose of shoving such an unwieldy tablet of complaints into a discussion.

You don't like conservatives, I get it.  I think a lot of what you ascribe to conservatives is more properly ascribed to humans in general, but I doubt you'll agree with me.  If you wish to discuss it with me, narrow your focus and let's dig into details.  

If  you don't want to discuss it, that's fine, so long as you don't complain that people aren't addressing your points.  A poster has a duty to make his points digestible, too.

[mykcob4]

So you don't like the ammount of problems that I stated that are inherent with the conservatives. I could list many many more. The fact is that the ideology of conservatism serves only 1% of the population. The people that have all the resourses and don't under any circumstances want to share them. After one generation, no matter how those resourses were aquired the validity of holding on to them is invalid.
To acquire those resourses in the first place the conservatives had to illegally exploit something. Nature, humans, governments etc..., one or more had to be illegally exploited to acquire them. To hold on to those ilgotten gains, the conservatives have to use tactics that are repulsive to society like:
Pitting a race against each other.
Religious idolotry.
Demanding blind obedience.
Revisionist history.
Pseudo-science.
Genocide.
Hatred/fear mongering.
Propaganda.
Take war for example. Throughout history those 1%ers have waged a war to acquire more treasure. They have exploited the ignorant to bleed for them in said wars. They justified those wars with false patriotism. They've used religious idolitry to fire up an ignorant base to wage such wars. They have stoked the fires of prejudice to create a climate of fear and hatred to gain public trust and loyalty for said wars. They have used lies and propaganda to justify their criminality. The latest such effort was the NEOCONS effort to control middleeast oil. A commodity that does nothing but make the rich richer. Blood for oil and it doesn't matter whose blood it is so matter as it isn't the blood of the very rich.
Genocide: The Latin American natives had their culture, language, religion, and lives erracticated to fill the coffers of the rich with gold, to acquire land that wasn't theirs. They called it manifest destiny among other such lies.
In modern times their has been conservatives that have erased the right of workers to bargin collectively even though every CEO can negotiate his/her contract on a collective basis. The call it "right to work" as if you as an individual can only have the right to work if you accept what corrupt corporations will give you. Like it is a priviledge to work, and you have no right to safety, a living wage, benefits of anykind. Yet your labor and produtivity makes them extremely wealthy.
In academia this called the affordable widget theory. Meaning workers must be able to afford the widgets they make, but the corrupt corporations have negated the affordable widget and demand people make products at a wage which would never afford them the product that they produce.
I understand the problems of corporations. They have to make a product that is desired and or needed that can be afforded by the consumer. To make that product they have expenses beyond the raw material and machinery used to make them. They don't want to pay for those expenses. Expenses like labor, benefits, environmental responsibility, safe working conditions, liabilities if the product fails or harms the consumer. Conservatives protect corrupt corporations from penalty or any liability for the things that they should be responsible for. They use propaganda and religious idolotry to enforce that protection.

Ah see, there it is. You have misconceptions about what it actually is.  It doesn't serve one percent of the population, it serves the entire population based on an ideology.  I think you have broadened the question to include ideologies that aren't really stood for here.  Take for instance your genocide, I beleive you are trying to mention things such as the crusades and Hitler, those ideologies are no longer held.  What we are talking about are conservatives as they apply to the United States today.  I will give you that there are changes to be made in the ideals, but the base for it is to conserve the constitution.

Conserve the Constitution? I don't think so. Conservatives have never been interested in conserving the constitution whatsoever. The Constitution is the protection of the rights of the individual. Conservatives always taut "majority rule" over the rights of the individual. They make lying claims that this nation was founded upon christian ideals. They fight against the rights of a woman to have dominion over their own bodies. over gays have the right to be what they are!
So they don't in anyway conserve the Constitution!

[mykcob4]

So you don't like the ammount of problems that I stated that are inherent with the conservatives. I could list many many more. The fact is that the ideology of conservatism serves only 1% of the population. The people that have all the resourses and don't under any circumstances want to share them. After one generation, no matter how those resourses were aquired the validity of holding on to them is invalid.
To acquire those resourses in the first place the conservatives had to illegally exploit something. Nature, humans, governments etc..., one or more had to be illegally exploited to acquire them. To hold on to those ilgotten gains, the conservatives have to use tactics that are repulsive to society like:
Pitting a race against each other.
Religious idolotry.
Demanding blind obedience.
Revisionist history.
Pseudo-science.
Genocide.
Hatred/fear mongering.
Propaganda.
Take war for example. Throughout history those 1%ers have waged a war to acquire more treasure. They have exploited the ignorant to bleed for them in said wars. They justified those wars with false patriotism. They've used religious idolitry to fire up an ignorant base to wage such wars. They have stoked the fires of prejudice to create a climate of fear and hatred to gain public trust and loyalty for said wars. They have used lies and propaganda to justify their criminality. The latest such effort was the NEOCONS effort to control middleeast oil. A commodity that does nothing but make the rich richer. Blood for oil and it doesn't matter whose blood it is so matter as it isn't the blood of the very rich.
Genocide: The Latin American natives had their culture, language, religion, and lives erracticated to fill the coffers of the rich with gold, to acquire land that wasn't theirs. They called it manifest destiny among other such lies.
In modern times their has been conservatives that have erased the right of workers to bargin collectively even though every CEO can negotiate his/her contract on a collective basis. The call it "right to work" as if you as an individual can only have the right to work if you accept what corrupt corporations will give you. Like it is a priviledge to work, and you have no right to safety, a living wage, benefits of anykind. Yet your labor and produtivity makes them extremely wealthy.
In academia this called the affordable widget theory. Meaning workers must be able to afford the widgets they make, but the corrupt corporations have negated the affordable widget and demand people make products at a wage which would never afford them the product that they produce.
I understand the problems of corporations. They have to make a product that is desired and or needed that can be afforded by the consumer. To make that product they have expenses beyond the raw material and machinery used to make them. They don't want to pay for those expenses. Expenses like labor, benefits, environmental responsibility, safe working conditions, liabilities if the product fails or harms the consumer. Conservatives protect corrupt corporations from penalty or any liability for the things that they should be responsible for. They use propaganda and religious idolotry to enforce that protection.

The problem with dropping thirty or so issues you wish to ascribe to a point-of-view is that you necessarily cut off discussion, becauise no one has the time or energy to address thirty different points made in one post.  That allows unquestioned premises to fly in "under the radar" complete with errors, which is usually the precise purpose of shoving such an unwieldy tablet of complaints into a discussion.

You don't like conservatives, I get it.  I think a lot of what you ascribe to conservatives is more properly ascribed to humans in general, but I doubt you'll agree with me.  If you wish to discuss it with me, narrow your focus and let's dig into details.  

If  you don't want to discuss it, that's fine, so long as you don't complain that people aren't addressing your points.  A poster has a duty to make his points digestible, too.

Fair enough. I totally understand. I wasn't using a tactic of volume to make my point. My point is that conservatives only serve the criminal interest of the corrupt 1% against their own individual best interest.
I would like to discuss any one of the points I put out. That is fine. But if no one cares to address my post for what ever reason, I have NO problem with that. Sometimes I come on to the board and feel like sounding off. Not for my ego, but to eliviate the frustration of the day. For instance, a woman told John McCain that her son was killed by an AR15 and she didn't think that such a weapon had any place on the streets. McCain told her that there is no way that he or Congress would allow an asault weapons ban.
I mean that just slayed me. He doesn't understand(or maybe he does), that weapons like that have no place in society except in the military or the police. McCain is funded by the gun manufacturers(NRA) and even though the majority of people WANT a ban on assault weapons, but that won't stop the conservatives form not passing one gun law that would make this nation safer.
Every single day there is an action by conservatives that is completely against what America needs or wants. It makes me angry. I love this nation. I served 22+ years in the USMC. I gave blood for this nation. I hate what a few corrupt corporations are doing to this nation, to the average family.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Fair enough. I totally understand. I wasn't using a tactic of volume to make my point. My point is that conservatives only serve the criminal interest of the corrupt 1% against their own individual best interest.
I would like to discuss any one of the points I put out. That is fine. But if no one cares to address my post for what ever reason, I have NO problem with that. Sometimes I come on to the board and feel like sounding off. Not for my ego, but to eliviate the frustration of the day. For instance, a woman told John McCain that her son was killed by an AR15 and she didn't think that such a weapon had any place on the streets. McCain told her that there is no way that he or Congress would allow an asault weapons ban.
I mean that just slayed me. He doesn't understand(or maybe he does), that weapons like that have no place in society except in the military or the police. McCain is funded by the gun manufacturers(NRA) and even though the majority of people WANT a ban on assault weapons, but that won't stop the conservatives form not passing one gun law that would make this nation safer.
Every single day there is an action by conservatives that is completely against what America needs or wants. It makes me angry. I love this nation. I served 22+ years in the USMC. I gave blood for this nation. I hate what a few corrupt corporations are doing to this nation, to the average family.

Thanks for your service.  I too served, four years in the Air Force, and I agree that conservatives do many things that are fucking infuriating.  It's especially so, for me, because I'm a centrist with conservative leanings -- that means that I get slapped with the fallout from their stupidity simply because I don't always agree with liberals, in a form of guilt by association.

The Patriot Act is bullshit, the erosion of rights is bullshit, but it didn't happen with only conservative votes.  Both parties in America don't give two shits rubbed together about the rights ensconced in the BoR, and I regard both of them as inimical to the interests of the country.

Unless and until we make all of the assholes in DC understand that their jobs can and will be vacated if they don't straighten up and fly right, we're screwed.

[SvZurich]

Nearly 7 years in the Navy before being fired after someone outed me.  I've been watching the Republicans lie and cheat since I was little when Reagan was elected.  I believed in them until the lies started adding up during Bush 1's reign.  I've been growing more liberal since.  Conservatives are the Tories who opposed the Revolution.  They conserve nothing because they are actually Regressives.  They want to turn the clock back, not conserve.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Nearly 7 years in the Navy before being fired after someone outed me.  I've been watching the Republicans lie and cheat since I was little when Reagan was elected.  I believed in them until the lies started adding up during Bush 1's reign.  I've been growing more liberal since.  Conservatives are the Tories who opposed the Revolution.  They conserve nothing because they are actually Regressives.  They want to turn the clock back, not conserve.

That's a pretty broad brush.  You certainly don't like it when liberals are treated in such a manner, right?

[Alaric I]

Conserve the Constitution? I don't think so. Conservatives have never been interested in conserving the constitution whatsoever. The Constitution is the protection of the rights of the individual. Conservatives always taut "majority rule" over the rights of the individual. They make lying claims that this nation was founded upon christian ideals. They fight against the rights of a woman to have dominion over their own bodies. over gays have the right to be what they are!
So they don't in anyway conserve the Constitution!

Yes they have some issues in that regard, but for someone who served 22+ years in USMC you seem to not really know the constitution.  Nowhere in there does it guarantee women dominion over their bodies.  Nowhere in it does it guarantee gays rights.  Should this be updated to include that? Yes, but as it stands now they are not guarenteed those rights.

[Alaric I]

Nearly 7 years in the Navy before being fired after someone outed me.  I've been watching the Republicans lie and cheat since I was little when Reagan was elected.  I believed in them until the lies started adding up during Bush 1's reign.  I've been growing more liberal since.  Conservatives are the Tories who opposed the Revolution.  They conserve nothing because they are actually Regressives.  They want to turn the clock back, not conserve.

How can you ascertain that conservatives were the ones that opposed the revolution?  They only had two parties at the time, revolutionists and loyalists.  If you think that conservatives were the loyalists than you must think the liberals were the revolutionists, and your ideals today certainly don't match up with them.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Conserve the Constitution? I don't think so. Conservatives have never been interested in conserving the constitution whatsoever. The Constitution is the protection of the rights of the individual. Conservatives always taut "majority rule" over the rights of the individual. They make lying claims that this nation was founded upon christian ideals. They fight against the rights of a woman to have dominion over their own bodies. over gays have the right to be what they are!
So they don't in anyway conserve the Constitution!

Yes they have some issues in that regard, but for someone who served 22+ years in USMC you seem to not really know the constitution.  Nowhere in there does it guarantee women dominion over their bodies.

The Supreme Court says otherwise.  It finds that there is an implied right to privacy over the medical decisions taken by a person, and I think they're right -- not that they care about my opinion, but you know what I'm saying.

Also, the right to control over one's body is implicit in both the 9th and 10th Amendments:

AMENDMENT IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Nowhere in it does it guarantee gays rights.

You'd better read your Constitution again, then.  The 14th Amendment explicitily requires that all Americans be treated equally under the law:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

In other words, the government, while handing out marriage licenses, cannot discriminate.

The settled law is in the process of being overturned, and this clause of the Constitution is gaining its rightful primacy of place.  In other words, it isn't that the Consitution doesn't guarantee the right, it's that it has not been placed into practice because of the bigotry of dickweeds.

 

Should this be updated to include that? Yes, but as it stands now they are not guarenteed those rights.

Those rights are in there.  It's just a matter of the system applying them.  It's a fine, but important, distinction.

[SvZurich]

Nearly 7 years in the Navy before being fired after someone outed me.  I've been watching the Republicans lie and cheat since I was little when Reagan was elected.  I believed in them until the lies started adding up during Bush 1's reign.  I've been growing more liberal since.  Conservatives are the Tories who opposed the Revolution.  They conserve nothing because they are actually Regressives.  They want to turn the clock back, not conserve.

How can you ascertain that conservatives were the ones that opposed the revolution?  They only had two parties at the time, revolutionists and loyalists.  If you think that conservatives were the loyalists than you must think the liberals were the revolutionists, and your ideals today certainly don't match up with them.

Liberals seek change.  Change was made by revolutionaries.  Conservatives oppose change.  They'd be Tories.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think his point was that the values espoused by liberals nowadays are at variance with the values espoused by the revolutionaries in this country.