Do "Conservatives" Really Want What They Are Getting?

[5.56'aholic]

why not look at it with a view point from the 2a?

Biden claims women have a constitutional right to abortion (its not).

The 2a gives us a constitutional right to own firearms.

The democrats have no issues making "common snese" gun laws to restrict our 2a freedoms, even though it is explicitly written "shall not be infringed."

Texas is simply adding common sense regulations to abortions. I don't see why the left has a problem?

Maybe its the same problem they have with conscientious objectors to forced vaccinations using the "phrase my body, my choice?"

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Nope. Not today.

 

[printcraft]

Strange. I was just thinking this morning how I do not miss Kut.

Some pools are simply too assinine to wade into.

There seems to be a fierce competition going for "most arrogant know it all" since his absence.

 

[NKBJ]

From the Gates of hell TEDtalk:
"First, we've got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services*, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent."

*Euphemism for abortion.
It's so fitting that the name "vaccine" comes from cow.

 

[Libertarian01]

To answer the question: NO. AND YES.

To clarify, it depends on the "conservative."

Every human being is unique. Even twins have different experiences.

We all have different priorities. Folks on this board are mostly prioritizing the freedom to bear arms, but that doesn't mean at all they they are ignoring freedom of speech, rights to privacy, or other rights that exist. Only that they put the 2nd amendment above the others in what they worry about.

Then again, maybe some of them DO prioritize other rights over the 2A, but express their concern for the RTKBA here. They could be more active on other boards.

Is the environment a "conservative" issue or a "liberal" issue? I don't believe it is either. It is a human issue. However, as some folks tend to be more vocal about protecting the environment they are generally falling into the "liberal" camp, but certainly not all. I have heard of several extremely fundamental, "conservative" Christian churches going whole hog for defending the environment, using the biblical concept of protecting God's earth.

It also depends upon how you define "conservative." I consider myself extremely fiscally conservative, and very socially liberal. My definition of "liberal" though may well not fall into current cultural trends. I value freedom of speech and oppose ALL limits that noisy social justice warriors try to put on what can be said on college campuses. I consider myself liberal as our founding fathers, prioritizing liberty over government intrusion.

But I will admit I am rather socialist on one (1) major issue - education. I fully support the idea of government funded schools that offer learning at a K - 12 level, and possibly(?) some assistance for higher learning. That said, I am opposed to allowing students to slide through school or forcing them to go. I support only the opportunity, NOT the compulsion. I think this way because I believe we can do better on every front with a better educated society. I also believe we need to strongly push the education of skills such as plumbing, electrician, HVAC and many other skilled trades. Those are also, in my opinion, very critical to our advancement. You can't have a genius group of rocket scientists design a rocket without having a damned skilled labor force to build the bloody thing.

Abortion is a very polarizing topic in America today. We have been fairly evenly split for the last 70 years and it hasn't swung significantly one way or the other. What HAS changed is the politicalization of the topic. Republican politicians scream defend babies. Democratic politicians scream defend women's rights. In the middle are human beings facing damned difficult situations with the other side only offering condemnation. Liberals, and most conservatives (from what I've heard) ignore entirely the fathers lack of say in the matter. Conservatives for the most part preach against it but don't offer large scale options to abortion. I must say on this issue I had extreme respect for Rev. Jerry Falwell, whom I generally disliked. HE stepped up and put his money where his mouth was and offered women an economic choice.

The "environment" or "climate change?" Those are MONSTER problems. Going full solar and wind will cause severe damages on their own. Yes, the air will become cleaner, but at what cost? Wind turbines cause massive problems with birds and mating cycles of most animals and bugs, so you screw that part of the environment. Solar? Solar panels have extremely toxic elements in them. There are already serious scientific concerns about what to do when the solar panels start to need to be replaced. Electric cars? Again, ask some of the folks what EXACTLY is in a massive car battery and see how easy that will be to recycle or dispose of!

Human beings will, from this point forward, be dependent upon electricity. HOW we get that electricity is a question that both liberals and conservatives MUST come together on. The liberals have very valid concerns about protecting the environment. Conservatives have very valid concerns about disrupting current economies and supply chains. The BOTH must pick folks who can be reasonable and come together on finding solutions that neither side will love, or maybe even like, but could think about it and live with it.

This brings me to my final thought - the noisy ones. The extremists. Both conservatives and liberals have folks in their own groups who demand absolute deference to their way. They know that their way is the right way and must be fully implemented no matter what. I am guessing it is about 5% on each side that goes off the deep end. Most of us fall in the middle on most issues. Both sides, in order to progress and work together as a society, need to learn to tell the intolerant ones on their sides to shut the hell up, it's as good as it's going to get, for now.

Regards,

Doug

 

[mbills2223]

There seems to be a fierce competition going for "most arrogant know it all" since his absence.

Imma throw my hat in the ring for that

From the Gates of hell TEDtalk:
"First, we've got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services*, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent."

*Euphemism for abortion.
It's so fitting that the name "vaccine" comes from cow.

View attachment 156860

Just to be clear, you do know the word vaccine comes from the Latin for cow because the first vaccine was created from cowpox, right?

 

[mbills2223]

To answer the question: NO. AND YES.

To clarify, it depends on the "conservative."

Every human being is unique. Even twins have different experiences.

We all have different priorities. Folks on this board are mostly prioritizing the freedom to bear arms, but that doesn't mean at all they they are ignoring freedom of speech, rights to privacy, or other rights that exist. Only that they put the 2nd amendment above the others in what they worry about.

Then again, maybe some of them DO prioritize other rights over the 2A, but express their concern for the RTKBA here. They could be more active on other boards.

Is the environment a "conservative" issue or a "liberal" issue? I don't believe it is either. It is a human issue. However, as some folks tend to be more vocal about protecting the environment they are generally falling into the "liberal" camp, but certainly not all. I have heard of several extremely fundamental, "conservative" Christian churches going whole hog for defending the environment, using the biblical concept of protecting God's earth.

It also depends upon how you define "conservative." I consider myself extremely fiscally conservative, and very socially liberal. My definition of "liberal" though may well not fall into current cultural trends. I value freedom of speech and oppose ALL limits that noisy social justice warriors try to put on what can be said on college campuses. I consider myself liberal as our founding fathers, prioritizing liberty over government intrusion.

But I will admit I am rather socialist on one (1) major issue - education. I fully support the idea of government funded schools that offer learning at a K - 12 level, and possibly(?) some assistance for higher learning. That said, I am opposed to allowing students to slide through school or forcing them to go. I support only the opportunity, NOT the compulsion. I think this way because I believe we can do better on every front with a better educated society. I also believe we need to strongly push the education of skills such as plumbing, electrician, HVAC and many other skilled trades. Those are also, in my opinion, very critical to our advancement. You can't have a genius group of rocket scientists design a rocket without having a damned skilled labor force to build the bloody thing.

Abortion is a very polarizing topic in America today. We have been fairly evenly split for the last 70 years and it hasn't swung significantly one way or the other. What HAS changed is the politicalization of the topic. Republican politicians scream defend babies. Democratic politicians scream defend women's rights. In the middle are human beings facing damned difficult situations with the other side only offering condemnation. Liberals, and most conservatives (from what I've heard) ignore entirely the fathers lack of say in the matter. Conservatives for the most part preach against it but don't offer large scale options to abortion. I must say on this issue I had extreme respect for Rev. Jerry Falwell, whom I generally disliked. HE stepped up and put his money where his mouth was and offered women an economic choice.

The "environment" or "climate change?" Those are MONSTER problems. Going full solar and wind will cause severe damages on their own. Yes, the air will become cleaner, but at what cost? Wind turbines cause massive problems with birds and mating cycles of most animals and bugs, so you screw that part of the environment. Solar? Solar panels have extremely toxic elements in them. There are already serious scientific concerns about what to do when the solar panels start to need to be replaced. Electric cars? Again, ask some of the folks what EXACTLY is in a massive car battery and see how easy that will be to recycle or dispose of!

Human beings will, from this point forward, be dependent upon electricity. HOW we get that electricity is a question that both liberals and conservatives MUST come together on. The liberals have very valid concerns about protecting the environment. Conservatives have very valid concerns about disrupting current economies and supply chains. The BOTH must pick folks who can be reasonable and come together on finding solutions that neither side will love, or maybe even like, but could think about it and live with it.

This brings me to my final thought - the noisy ones. The extremists. Both conservatives and liberals have folks in their own groups who demand absolute deference to their way. They know that their way is the right way and must be fully implemented no matter what. I am guessing it is about 5% on each side that goes off the deep end. Most of us fall in the middle on most issues. Both sides, in order to progress and work together as a society, need to learn to tell the intolerant ones on their sides to shut the hell up, it's as good as it's going to get, for now.

Regards,

Doug

Dang...that was a quality post

 

[Libertarian01]

Dang...that was a quality post

Thank you. I just posted. You must be a REALLY, REALLY fast reader!

Regards,

Doug

 

[NKBJ]

Imma throw my hat in the ring for that



Just to be clear, you do know the word vaccine comes from the Latin for cow because the first vaccine was created from cowpox, right?

As a matter of fact, yes. I'm pretty sure most everybody learned the milkmaids immunity story along with having to cut open a formaldehyde soaked frog.

 

[dvd1955]

...
I also find interest that you CHOSE to go Pro-Life rather than addressing climate change that will effect you most...

Because I happen to feel life is the most important right, and millions are being denied that right, now, not in some future scenario.

 

[KG1]

I like turtles. Save the turtles.

 

[Leo]

"Texas passes anti-abortion ban in 72 hours with no public debates."

That is pretty funny, There have been public debates in most states in the Union since NY Governor Rockerfeller started the money making abortion industry in 1971, and every state and district in America has had open debates since 1973. I remember the disbelief of the Average American when it started. We were a more responsible people then.

 

[Leadeye]

I've never been able to understand the climate change thing. Over unrecorded history continents have moved, mass extinctions have taken place, and I'm sure the climate has changed.

 

[JeepHammer]

To answer the question: NO. AND YES.

To clarify, it depends on the "conservative."

Every human being is unique. Even twins have different experiences.

We all have different priorities. Folks on this board are mostly prioritizing the freedom to bear arms, but that doesn't mean at all they they are ignoring freedom of speech, rights to privacy, or other rights that exist. Only that they put the 2nd amendment above the others in what they worry about.

Then again, maybe some of them DO prioritize other rights over the 2A, but express their concern for the RTKBA here. They could be more active on other boards.

Is the environment a "conservative" issue or a "liberal" issue? I don't believe it is either. It is a human issue. However, as some folks tend to be more vocal about protecting the environment they are generally falling into the "liberal" camp, but certainly not all. I have heard of several extremely fundamental, "conservative" Christian churches going whole hog for defending the environment, using the biblical concept of protecting God's earth.

It also depends upon how you define "conservative." I consider myself extremely fiscally conservative, and very socially liberal. My definition of "liberal" though may well not fall into current cultural trends. I value freedom of speech and oppose ALL limits that noisy social justice warriors try to put on what can be said on college campuses. I consider myself liberal as our founding fathers, prioritizing liberty over government intrusion.

But I will admit I am rather socialist on one (1) major issue - education. I fully support the idea of government funded schools that offer learning at a K - 12 level, and possibly(?) some assistance for higher learning. That said, I am opposed to allowing students to slide through school or forcing them to go. I support only the opportunity, NOT the compulsion. I think this way because I believe we can do better on every front with a better educated society. I also believe we need to strongly push the education of skills such as plumbing, electrician, HVAC and many other skilled trades. Those are also, in my opinion, very critical to our advancement. You can't have a genius group of rocket scientists design a rocket without having a damned skilled labor force to build the bloody thing.

Abortion is a very polarizing topic in America today. We have been fairly evenly split for the last 70 years and it hasn't swung significantly one way or the other. What HAS changed is the politicalization of the topic. Republican politicians scream defend babies. Democratic politicians scream defend women's rights. In the middle are human beings facing damned difficult situations with the other side only offering condemnation. Liberals, and most conservatives (from what I've heard) ignore entirely the fathers lack of say in the matter. Conservatives for the most part preach against it but don't offer large scale options to abortion. I must say on this issue I had extreme respect for Rev. Jerry Falwell, whom I generally disliked. HE stepped up and put his money where his mouth was and offered women an economic choice.

The "environment" or "climate change?" Those are MONSTER problems. Going full solar and wind will cause severe damages on their own. Yes, the air will become cleaner, but at what cost? Wind turbines cause massive problems with birds and mating cycles of most animals and bugs, so you screw that part of the environment. Solar? Solar panels have extremely toxic elements in them. There are already serious scientific concerns about what to do when the solar panels start to need to be replaced. Electric cars? Again, ask some of the folks what EXACTLY is in a massive car battery and see how easy that will be to recycle or dispose of!

Human beings will, from this point forward, be dependent upon electricity. HOW we get that electricity is a question that both liberals and conservatives MUST come together on. The liberals have very valid concerns about protecting the environment. Conservatives have very valid concerns about disrupting current economies and supply chains. The BOTH must pick folks who can be reasonable and come together on finding solutions that neither side will love, or maybe even like, but could think about it and live with it.

This brings me to my final thought - the noisy ones. The extremists. Both conservatives and liberals have folks in their own groups who demand absolute deference to their way. They know that their way is the right way and must be fully implemented no matter what. I am guessing it is about 5% on each side that goes off the deep end. Most of us fall in the middle on most issues. Both sides, in order to progress and work together as a society, need to learn to tell the intolerant ones on their sides to shut the hell up, it's as good as it's going to get, for now.

Regards,

Doug

A coherent reply, thanks for that.

 

[JTScribe]

It’s a good racket to prevent forestry cleanup and controlled burns, then blame global warming when the piles of dry tinder inevitably CATCH ON FREAKING FIRE.

 

[phylodog]

Pro-Life...

What about the mother's life when the pregnancy goes wrong and both will die?
No medical exemptions in this one.

When one side refuses to stop at allowing abortions for legitimate medical scenarios like this one and instead demand they be not only allowed for any reason but also be subsidized by the government you're going to get opposition who no longer want to find middle ground.

Then what are 'Conservatives' doing about mass shootings?

What are liberals doing? Screaming for gun control because banning things works? It's funny because we've banned rape, murder, child molestation, robbery, burglary, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines and LSD and it has stopped none of them. I don't believe there is a single one of these examples or any other that can be shown to have been effectively dealt with by banning them or making them illegal.

Clearly the coddling of these criminals and granting them victim status isn't working.

Why are there still death penalities?

Because some monsters insist on victimizing people and taking everything from them up to and including their life. Conservatives tend to believe that the punishment should fit the crime. Kill an innocent person without just cause you should be put to death.

How can Pro-Lifers support wars?

Typically soldiers are at least somewhat capable of defending themselves against attack. Adults also have the option to not engage in a war or to stop at defending themselves rather than going on the offensive. Unborn children don't.

Why are people dying because medical care is controlled by insurance companies?

Because the liberal messiah (Obama) demanded every citizen purchase medical insurance or be penalized? People were dying before insurance existed, they'll continue to if insurance disappears. Health care is not a right.

I'm wondering how that's rationalized in the 'Conservative' brain, how do those diametrically opposed facts co-exist?

The issue isn't the diametrical opposition, it is in what liberals consider to be "facts".

I'm not saying I don't have conflicts about things, I'm just wondering what happens when things are taken to the extreme...

Then you end up with things like outright bans on abortion and a typically unlikable human being like Donald Trump being elected as President.

I also find interest that you CHOSE to go Pro-Life rather than addressing climate change that will effect you most...

I don't know any conservatives who don't care about the environment. Where the divide opens rapidly is in both what is causing it and what should be done about it. Liberals seem to believe that if we were to stop utilizing fossil fuels tomorrow that the world would be less prone to continue having a shifting climate. The climate has been changing for thousands of years, it will continue for thousands more.

Handcuffing ourselves with environmental regulations does nothing to help pollution. For every item we can no longer manufacture or work with here, other countries are more than happy to step up to the plate and fill in the gaps. The big difference is that while we at least make attempts to deal with hazardous waste safely, those countries filling in the gaps are fine with dumping it into their rivers.

Climate change isn't a political issue. How to address it is. Conservatives would like solutions which actually improve the situation without resulting in the further weakening of our economy and resource independence. Liberals just want a law passed so they can pat themselves on the back confident that they've done something, doesn't matter that the something accomplishes nothing.

 

[Leo]

BTW, we studied and were riled up about global cooling and freezing to death when I was in school. The brighter people were researching history and charted an historical 500 year cooling/ warming cycle. In Europe, the late middle ages with famines due to weather related crop failure, and all that tragedy of about 1300 to 1500 were part of that time line. Of course there was the Irish potato famine caused by the blight. Sounds minor to us, but 3 year of people starving to death is pretty tough to live through.

An interesting note describing the conditions for the end of the world in Chapter 24 of the Christian Bible:
6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.

 

[JCSR]

 

[KG1]

When one side refuses to stop at allowing abortions for legitimate medical scenarios like this one and instead demand they be not only allowed for any reason but also be subsidized by the government you're going to get opposition who no longer want to find middle ground.


What are liberals doing? Screaming for gun control because banning things works? It's funny because we've banned rape, murder, child molestation, robbery, burglary, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines and LSD and it has stopped none of them. I don't believe there is a single one of these examples or any other that can be shown to have been effectively dealt with by banning them or making them illegal.

Clearly the coddling of these criminals and granting them victim status isn't working.

Because some monsters insist on victimizing people and taking everything from them up to and including their life. Conservatives tend to believe that the punishment should fit the crime. Kill an innocent person without just cause you should be put to death.

Typically soldiers are at least somewhat capable of defending themselves against attack. Adults also have the option to not engage in a war or to stop at defending themselves rather than going on the offensive. Unborn children don't.

Because the liberal messiah (Obama) demanded every citizen purchase medical insurance or be penalized? People were dying before insurance existed, they'll continue to if insurance disappears. Health care is not a right.

The issue isn't the diametrical opposition, it is in what liberals consider to be "facts".

Then you end up with things like outright bans on abortion and a typically unlikable human being like Donald Trump being elected as President.

I don't know any conservatives who don't care about the environment. Where the divide opens rapidly is in both what is causing it and what should be done about it. Liberals seem to believe that if we were to stop utilizing fossil fuels tomorrow that the world would be less prone to continue having a shifting climate. The climate has been changing for thousands of years, it will continue for thousands more.

Handcuffing ourselves with environmental regulations does nothing to help pollution. For every item we can no longer manufacture or work with here, other countries are more than happy to step up to the plate and fill in the gaps. The big difference is that while we at least make attempts to deal with hazardous waste safely, those countries filling in the gaps are fine with dumping it into their rivers.

Climate change isn't a political issue. How to address it is. Conservatives would like solutions which actually improve the situation without resulting in the further weakening of our economy and resource independence. Liberals just was a law passed to they can pat themselves on the back confident that they've done something, doesn't matter that the something accomplishes nothing.

Dang that was a quality post. Thank you.

 

[DadSmith]

There is major climate change going on just in the last 8 days. I mean it went from 92 degrees to 57 degrees. I witnessed it personally.
I'm afraid soon with climate cooling the leaves will fall off trees in great numbers.
What to do? Is it the end of the United States as we know it? Will there be a mini ice age for at least two months?
Oh! The terror has gripped me.