Hey everyone! I'm just joining the forum and am excited to participate here. I've been hanging out in conservative forums that have a propensity to ban liberals - which takes all the fun away; having a bunch of us conservatives sitting around telling each other how right (correct) we are is not any fun. I also checked out a couple liberal forums, thinking I could get plenty of passionate debates as a rare conservative on those platforms. Well, many liberal forums just ban conservatives so they're as boring as are those conservative forums - not that they banned me; I just didn't bother to join after seeing the close-minded policies. The great thing, I hope, that I see in politicalforum.com is that the numbers on the left and on the right seems more balanced and there's plenty of great debates going on. I see the rules say that my first 10 posts have to be moderated... Well, those posts will all be submitted soon after I get off work tonight . I have a dozen threads open where I've just been waiting for my account approval so I can jump in. I (gee... 4 out of 5 paragraphs start with "I". What does that tell you about me?) do love to debate. I try to, mostly, do it logically and not emotionally. I offer a lot of references and links and quotes to back up my argument and expect to win every debate... It's going to be fun. Hopefully for you as much as for me.
Your gonna miss that Ban'enum thingy I betcha ader you see what they do around here. Welcome to the forum.
Be welcomed, also understand that "Conservative" is not what it was 10 years ago. Many of the old school are now considered Liberals by the Trumpists here so realize that going in and you will have a good experience.
Welcome, Levant. We do hope you enjoy the boards and a little civil disagreement. There are plenty of forums that cover many interests. Have fun!
~ Welcome to the club. I think many of us are looking for the same as you - balance . It certainly is not there at many political websites / threads . See you around ...
Republicans aren't what they were 10 years ago, or 40 years ago but conservatives are. Those who aren't the same aren't really conservatives
You've come to the right place for vigorous debates. I call myself a conservative but one of the 'other' conservatives here says I am an old-fashioned principled liberal. I don't "feel" like a liberal, but on thinking about it, yes, I am not too far away, in programmatic terms, from a JFK Democrat. But things have changed a lot since JFK was President. Whatever. You should enjoy the arguments here. You might like to spell out somewhere what makes you think of yourself as a 'conservative' but not a Republican. If you're a book reader, you might enjoy FH Buckley's recent book, The Republican Workers Party. He was a speechwriter for Mr Trump. It's an interesting book.
I'm a conservative and not a Republican because the Republicans today make JFK look conservative in comparison. I, on the other hand, make JFK look as he was: liberal. Some accuse me of being a Gary Johnson libertarian because I am against the war on drugs, against government interference in personal, otherwise victimless, choices. I am not a libertarian, at least not a Gary Johnson style libertarian. I recognize that our Founders, and my own ancestors, created a federal government which, like any government, requires surrendering some liberty for some security. I accept that. I also understand that, on the other hand, our Founders put explicit limits on that government. I am a conservative, and not a Republican (regardless that I am registered to vote in their primary) because I believe in government of the people, by the people, and for the people, to quote the first Republican president. I'm a conservative because I believe in equal rights for all. I believe that all men are created equal. I believe in equal opportunity for all. I'm conservative because I believe in the human spirit and the ability of humans to rise up on their own if they can just shake the bonds of government oppression. I believe that minorities and women are every bit as intelligent and capable as are white men. I believe that minorities can achieve the American Dream if only government would quit telling them that they are not capable of success on their own and can only survive by the grace of government. I'm a conservative, and not a Republican, because I believe that people should enjoy the fruits of their own labors and that they should not have entitlement to the fruits of the labor of others. I'm conservative and not Republican because I believe this applies to billionaires and corporations as much as it applies to the lazy and slothful. I'm a conservative and not a Republican because though I am against charity forced at the point of an IRS gun, I donate my time, labor, and money voluntarily for appropriate local charities - my favorite, having been raised partly in foster homes, is Angel Trees for foster children. I'm a conservative, and not a Republican, because I believe in personal responsibility and personal accountability. I believe that poverty is a choice and an acceptable one. If you choose poverty, accept the consequences of your choice. If you choose not to be poor, then take the steps to get out of poverty. We all get from life what it is that we really want, and not necessarily what we daydream about or claim to want - with the possible exception of life changing, debilitating, accidents - though many who have those go on to be great successes. Lastly, and mostly, I am a conservative, and not a Republican, because I believe in the value of innocent lives of the unborn and newly born. Until someone can prove that the development of a soul doesn't happen at conception, I believe we have to take the conservative side and, if we're going to err, err on the side of life.
Very interesting! I hope you stick around. I think 'conservatism', 'liberalism', 'libertarianism', even 'leftism' (ie propensity towards the radical left) are first of all best understood as words describing propensities, not ideologies. The ideology comes later, if at all. To me, 'conservatism' is held by people who believe, or act as if they believe, they are deeply ignorant of how society 'works', and are therefore reluctant to change a society that seems to be working pretty well ... and when they do change it, want to make slow, incremental changes. They lack the self-confidence to propose bold radical changes, especially if those changes are motivated by claims about human nature -- how it can be perfected, in particular, by the changes proposed by the person arguing for them. So it's opposed to the other 'isms', which seem to start from abstractions, sometimes abstractions that have no reference to human nature, but do have some hidden assumptions about it nonetheless. Starting from that disposition, we can arrive at your conclusions. But then there are many unanswered questions. All ideologies want to see some sub-set, or even the whole set, of humanity flourish, with, perhaps, the exception of Randianism. (I don't know enough about Rand's philosophy to assert this without a 'perhaps'.) But this desire is not enough to dictate what we should believe in detail. For instance, should someone without children and who intendes to have none, have to help pay for the education of the children of other people? I believe they should, and I think this is completely compatible with the principles of what is popularly known in the US as 'conservatism'. On the other hand, if I propose some NEW way of having all of us pay for the education of all children -- say, vouchers as opposed to government-monopoly schools -- the first response of a conservative ought to be skepticism. The conservative ought to say, "Is our school system so bad, that it requires this radical leap into the dark to ix it. Shouldn't we try reforming whatever is wrong with it first?" Anyway, I look forward to your thoughts on everything -- or some things -- that is happening in our crazy world.
Good points, above. But I want to reply specifically to your view on education. First off, there is no mention of education in the Constitution. It is not an enumerated power of the Federal Government and they are therefore, by the 10th Amendment, explicitly forbidden from getting involved in education. So, let's agree first that the only potential authority over education is in the hands of the States. So the two remaining questions on the table are: Can the taxes paid by those without children can be used to pay for the education of those who choose to have children? Are government vouchers an acceptable way to pay for education as an alternative to assignment to schools with no choice? Rather than continuing this discussion in welcome threads, that don't usually get a lot of attention, I've answered these questions in the Budget and Taxes forum in a thread titled Funding Education.