Can you be Conservative and Atheist?

Kilgram: "I will explain. For me a conservative is that person that wants to keep the traditions. If I don't remember wrongly you defended for example the homosexual marriage. It goes against the idea of the conservative of conservatism of the traditional values of the family..."

Ah, yes, you mean like the sacred educational system that can't be changed in any way, except by raising taxes and spending more money. Liberals object to every change.

Or, Social Security. It was ushered in by a liberal messiah and can't be touch, except to raise the FICA tax and spend more money.

Halthcare is the same. It's either socilaized medicine of nothing. Raise taxes and spend more.

Abortion? Discussion over. Well, except the left might be willing to consider post-natal abortion. No, abortion on demand until the moment of a natural birth is "the law of the land" and can never ever be questioned.

Liberals detest change, except for raising taxes and spending more money.

I'm a fiscal conservative. I am an atheist. I support full civil rights for gays, no more, no less.

 

I will admit only that my statements were imprecise, and thus potentially confusing. If you want, I can pull out 10 quotes where Obama said we must raise revenues to cover expenses and/or lower expenses so they cna be covered by current revenues. This is fiscal conservatism, which I say is so patently obvious that there are no rational dissenters.

As for your comments about what you make, you are completely wrong. Suppose something happens and you need to whip out your credit card, for a new bedais for veranda or whatever. Going into temporary debt does not mean you are not fiscally conservative. You employ a strawman argument.

 

Liberals are fiscal conservatives. Everybody is a fiscal conservative.

 

It's easy to be right when you invent other people's opinions...

Of course it can be touched... The irony in modern American politics is that old people are a strong conservative demographic and at the same time the ones most adamant about keeping their social security. Hypocrisy? Self-destructiveness? Cognitive dissonance? I'm not sure.

False...again. Anyway, if you want to make more in order to spend more it's called "fiscal conservatism."

Nonsense. Do you think "liberals" would be happy with a return to slavery and defend it based solely on existing law?

Even accepting this as true, which it isn't, it's fiscally conservative.

 

Ok, so you are basing your beliefs of his fiscal conservativism off what he says, I base it off what he does. Spending money you don't have before you know where you are going to get it from is no where near fiscally conservative or smart. Spending ~$1 trillion in stimulus and having no clue of where that money is going to come from is irresponsible and totally idiotic (yes, so was Bush's progrssive spending).

To think that he can spend every cent he possibly can get his hands around with no clue of raising enough revenue to cover that spending is not conservative either. Raising tax rates on everyone won't cover his debt spending. Pulling us out of Iraq and Afgan AND Libya along with those tax raises over 10 years won't cover one year of his debt spending. This guy is not fiscally conservative by any means, either by the way he talks, or by his actions.

1, what is a bedais?

2nd, if I need to replace something, that is what my savings would be for. 3 savings accounts. 1 for retirement. 1 for emergencies. 1 for big ticket items.

If I lose my house to a fire, I use the emergency. If I lose my TV to a lightning strike, I use the big ticket account. If I want to go on vacation, I use the big ticket account. It isn't that hard really.

 

They'll have to rely on this guy, apparently.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rmUZQrvF5o"]Captain HINDSIGHT - YouTube[/ame]

 

Political conservatism has something to do with the past??? What??

 

We need to get the Social and Fiscal aspects of our nation in order, NOT one or the other.

 

Sorry, but since physical conservatism basically is concerned with avoiding deficit spending, I am against it. Businesses borrow to expand, individuals borrow to improve their life (purchase homes etc). Governments borrow to improve, expand and consolidate the Nation and its people. Legitimate needs should be met by deficit spending when necessary.

 

And when you get sick with cancer and your insurance decides they should let you die because you are too big an expense, then I don't need to pay taxes for your health care.

 

Self Reliance = I got mine, who cares if you get yours or not!

 

Conservatism and Political Conservatism are NOT the same thing.
Liberals, in favor of gay marriage, in favor of abortion, and on and on--liberals embrace and cry for change. Conservatives want things their way, the way that benefits them, regardless of history, or what has happened.

 

I am not a liberal and not a fiscal conservative.

 

I think we first need to define "Conservative."

 

It was not always that way for businesses and individuals. After the great depression, people actually saved up to buy homes with cash, not credit. $100k is easier to get in less than 30 years if you are not paying interest. Too many people want to live pay check to pay check buying the biggest home they can get their hands on that their job can allow for, just to loose it all if they happen to get laid off.

 

Your taxes should have never gone to my healthcare. That is why I have insurance, and not Obamacare. Although if an insurance company decided to drop someone for that reason, they would have a fight on their hands, but it probably hasn't happened all that much.

 

Self reliance = I go to work, why aren't you accepting job offers instead of collecting unemployment for 2 years?

 

Really? What is the right to gay marriage going to do to stimulate the economy on a large scale? Initial booms for marriage stuff, but that will die down fast considering a liberal estimate of Homosexuals only constitute 10% of the population, and I have no clue of those 30,000,000 people actually want to get married now or ever.

And really after that, what other pressing social concerns are actually being oppressed? You can't say not funding PP cause feds don't give money for the abortions remember?

 

Sorry, but that is just your opinion, the opinion of a political conservative. As I stated, my opinion is different and I see nothing wrong with a person going into debt, a business going into debt , or a nation going into debt.
I am NOT a political conservative.

 

Should've would've, coud've-----
My taxes have gone to pay for MY medical insurance, social security. I also have secondary insurance that I pay for. And I have no problem with more of my tax money going to assist those that are in dire need.
Unlike so many conservatives, I believe in assisting my fellow Americans. Even though my little contribution is not much, because the government has decided it should also help, then my contribution is increased by many million fold, and does a great deal of good.
Feel free to be a conservative, greedy, selfish and thinking only of yourself, a great many other Americans feel the same way. Personally, I could not live with myself if I thought that way.

 

Hmmm, Social and Fiscal does NOT mean they are related. They are two different things and BOTH need to be addressed. Addressing issues of bigotry, prejudice and financial responsibility are equally important to any Nation that expects to be around for any length of time.

 

Because of this debt, we have allowed the prices of everything to go up. Free market places their prices based on what their customers are willing to spend. If we didn't have the ability for debt, we would be reluctant to pay the price on a lot of things at their current cost. Because of debt, inflation progresses faster than income.

 

See, that is why there is the good thing called charities that many people choose to support. These taxes also take from those that aren't "well off" but could use that money to pay for a better healthcare for themselves if the government wasn't taking away. I don't mind giving to charities, those recipients actually thank those that chose to give. When was the last time you saw a poor man thank the rich for providing the government health care the poor man receives? All you see is when the poor man is strong enough, e is back out in the protests demanding MORE of the rich mans money. You don't have a right to MY money, nor does the government. Those that don't work for what they receive don't respect the things they have. You see this in Kids that break their toys, and you see this with welfare leeches that seem to think someone owes them something.

 

I agree, they both need to be addressed, but if we go broke, it doesn't matter if gays have the right to marry or not, we ALL would be in a bigger mess anyways. I don't worry about fixing my TV when I can't pay for my house.

 

Have you never heard the term the "religious right"? Conservatism is about economics, not wanting to be burdened with taxes and/or a large state apparatus. The religious right's taking over the GOP is what turned a lot of people independent. The hand shake between religious folk and free marketeers is what made the modern GOP, and now what is currently destroying it. "Social conservatism" turned out to be too much for small government types to bare. Taxes for things like "the war on drugs" to "homeland security", both big government at it's worst. Small government is no longer an option, while the GOP thinks the small government types are still going to show up to back the religious right's wanting of support on issues such as gay marriage, abortion and creationism. I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time, but one side totally forgot about the other.