Why I Am Not A Conservative

[MissBarbara]

Just one example among very, very many, but here's one of those multiply-forwarded emails i received from a relative:


3 short sentences

When you vote for an incumbent you are perpetuating our government as it is now.  Nothing will change. 3 short sentences, you may find interesting.
   
These three, short sentences tell you a lot about the direction of our current government and cultural environment:

1.) We are advised NOT to judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.
     
Funny how that works. And here's another one worth considering.
     
2.) Seems we constantly hear about how Social Security is going to run out of money. How come we never hear about welfare or food stamps running out of money?  What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but the second didn't.
     
Think about it..... Last but not least:
     
3.) Why are we cutting benefits for our veterans, no pay raises for our military and cutting our army to a level lower than before WWII, but we are not stopping payments to illegal aliens such as monthly payments for each child, money for housing, Food Stamps, free education including college and also the right to vote?
     
Am I the only one missing something?
     
If not, pass this along!

[DrKeith]

not sure what this has to be with not being a conservative.

[Katiebee]

Those are all conservative talking points used to point out the evil liberal policies. E.g. Discrimination is ok if it's clothed in "patriotism",  welfare queens are evil lazy slobs, and more veterans rah rah wrapped in the flag jingoism.

[DrKeith]

kkkkkkkk

[Katiebee]

To be less dismissive about it, the first item is saying that by definition all Muslims are bad. The issue with guns is that there is a strong lobby that opposes all reasonable efforts to prevent those who are mentally unstable or violent from obtaining guns, because doing so would be inconvienent to citizens who are legally entitled to purchase and own guns.

The second item totally ignores that welfare and food stamps are funded by appropriations, not individual contributions, DUH!

The third item totally ignores that the conservative Republicans have resisted pay increases, and funding and oversight for the VA  for the last 30 years.

Nothing succeeds like the big lie.

[Katiebee]

That one was so stupid I didn't bother with it.

[Katiebee]

Those emails are so blatantly wrong that it's almost like they are targeting the mentally deficient and terminally gullible.

[Athos_131]

It's much easier and entertaining to mock these asshelmets rather than argue with them.

[RopeFiend]

The second item totally ignores that welfare and food stamps are funded by appropriations, not individual contributions, DUH!

Not entirely true.  Up until JFK, Social Security was managed like a trust.  It was a separate chunk of money paid into by workers, and returned to them at retirement.  JFK changed all that.  He pulled it more into the General Fund, and added riders to pull food stamps and  (something else, forgot what it was but TOTALLY unrelated to 'Social Security') from that fund.  Since then it's gotten even MORE fuzzy, and the fucking Republicans don't get to crow about it 'cos we've had PLENTY of Republican control of the presidency and/or House / Congress in the intervening 50+ years.  NEITHER side gets to bitch about it until they FIX it.

I researched it once (many, many moons ago in High School) but the details have gotten muddy since then.  My standard line (since my research) is that JFK was shot just a little too late... especially relevant now that I'm getting closer to retirement age.

<I'm a 'centrist Libertarian', if it matters>

[MissBarbara]

It's much easier and entertaining to mock these asshelmets rather than argue with them.

I agree.

Crap like this doesn't anger me, it amuses me.

I especially like the consistent use of straw man arguments posed in the passive voice, e.g. "we are advised," "we are encouraged," "seems we constantly hear," etc., etc.

There's also the racially tinged assertion, in #2, that all welfare recipients are shiftless and lazy, choosing to suck on the government teat rather than get off their fat asses and look for a job.

[thetaxmancometh]

I shouldn't have to point it out, but there are these nonsensical arguments from the left as well.

The populous that believes "hope and change" is a valid policy position is just as willing to buy into the tripe that they prefer as the "desperate clingers" are to the tripe they prefer.

[Katiebee]

I dare say the tripe in the emails isn't being perpetuated by liberals. This seems to be a conservative issue.

Seems a lot like Swift boating and Rove tactics

[MissBarbara]

I shouldn't have to point it out, but there are these nonsensical arguments from the left as well.

The populous that believes "hope and change" is a valid policy position is just as willing to buy into the tripe that they prefer as the "desperate clingers" are to the tripe they prefer.

You're right, as many nonsensical arguments flow from the Left as the Right.

But few of the nonsensical arguments from the Left are as laced with the racism and degradation as those from the Right.

And "Hope and Change" is not a "policy position," and I'd suspect very, very few people believe it's a policy position. Neither was Reagan's "Morning in America" a policy position. Both are campaign themes.

[thetaxmancometh]

Could be barb, I am not sure. I see quite a bit of radicalization on both sides and if you look to see something, you likely will find it.

[MissBarbara]

Could be barb, I am not sure. I see quite a bit of radicalization on both sides and if you look to see something, you likely will find it.

Again, I agree with your general point (and I indicated as much).

But my comments in this thread were not addressed to Conservatives or Conservatism, but rather, one specific point made by a Conservative, written for Conservatives, and forwarded by Conservatives.

Look at it another way: Do you agree with the three beliefs asserted in the text I cited?

[thetaxmancometh]

No, but I am not sure Katie read them as intended (and you agreed with her so I am assuming her words as yours.. if I am wrong, my apologies).

1) Wasn't saying that discrimination is ok if cloaked in patriotism, it was saying that people who judge all gunowners by the actions of a tiny minority are idiotic. It was saying that judging all muslims by the actions of a few is wrong.

2) This simplifies the issue to stupidity, imo. I could write a long time on this, but welfare is a broken system. It was intended to be a program only for those who literally couldn't work or temporarily for those who few on hard times.. not to be a lifestyle for multiple generations. The welfare system is broken.

SS is broken as well, it was robbed by the government for decades and now it is broke. I am 35 years old, make a good living, and SS will not be there for me when I retire (IMO). I am ok with losing the 20 years I have paid into it, I just want to stop paying into it now! SS was also intended to be a supplement to retirement, not the whole thing.

So as to his point in #2, I find it simplistic to the ridiculous. Both programs are good programs in theory, both are broken.

3) I am all for a strong military, it is not only a good system for the security of the nation, but it is also a great job's program. Most of the military is made up adults from low-income homes who would have had a hard time succeeding in the job market. The military trains these young adults very well, gives them job skills, gives them benefits, and teaches them to be responsible adults.

The claims this guy is making just arnt true about the military... our military budget isn't being slashed, the # of our military isn't be significantly decreased, and they get pay raises.

The other claims he is making, that illegals are getting access to benefits that they havnt earned, is true in broad strokes, but most of the specifics he gave are wrong. They are prohibited from many government welfare programs and certainly do not have the right to vote (although that idea is pushed by some liberal politicians). Again this is an argument that is reduced to stupidity levels, there is a serious issue with illegal immigration but it can't be addressed in a few sentences.... except by me :p We need to secure our borders, THEN we need to identify all illegals in the country to see who is a criminal ect., then we need to find a way not just towards citizenship but to integration into our society. Immigrants in general tend to be some of the hardest working people you will ever meet and our nation was founded on immigration... but it has to be done in an orderly manner.

Any other questions? Keep in mind that while I am conservative, I am mostly a libertarian.

[MissBarbara]

No, but I am not sure Katie read them as intended (and you agreed with her so I am assuming her words as yours.. if I am wrong, my apologies).

You're wrong. I agreed with Katie on one particular -- "It's much easier and entertaining to mock these asshelmets rather than argue with them." And by "these asshelmets" I am referring not to all Conservatives, but to those Conservatives who express sentiments like those in the OP.

Katie and I get lumped together a lot here (where's snowm?), and though we agree on many things, we also disagree on many things. Besides, she could kick my ass with one hand tied behind her back. (Though, now that I think about that, that sounds kinda hot.)

1) Wasn't saying that discrimination is ok if cloaked in patriotism, it was saying that people who judge all gunowners by the actions of a tiny minority are idiotic. It was saying that judging all muslims by the actions of a few is wrong.

I wrote about this at length yesterday, and I agree that all gun owners should not be judged by the actions of a tiny minority. I also agree that all Muslims should not be judged by a tiny minority. The statement in the OP illogically conflates and contrasts the two. Both are wrong, just as virtually every stereotype is wrong.

This illogic is compounded, as I noted, resorts to the passive voice to create a classic straw man argument ("we are advised...we are encouraged...).

2) This simplifies the issue to stupidity, imo. I could write a long time on this, but welfare is a broken system. It was intended to be a program only for those who literally couldn't work or temporarily for those who few on hard times.. not to be a lifestyle for multiple generations. The welfare system is broken.

SS is broken as well, it was robbed by the government for decades and now it is broke. I am 35 years old, make a good living, and SS will not be there for me when I retire (IMO). I am ok with losing the 20 years I have paid into it, I just want to stop paying into it now! SS was also intended to be a supplement to retirement, not the whole thing.

So as to his point in #2, I find it simplistic to the ridiculous. Both programs are good programs in theory, both are broken.

I agree with you.

Again, see the use of the passive voice ("we constantly hear...we never hear...").

Over and above the fact that the Social Security Program and Welfare Programs have nothing to do with each other, nor, for that matter, would slashing welfare increase or refund Social Security, that's not what this writer is saying here.

The problem with this statement is the assertion that welfare recipients never "worked for" what they are receiving. Welfare isn't a payback or reimbursement, it's support to those who need it. The statement resorts to the stereotypes -- implicitly tinged with racism -- of welfare recipients being loafers and shirkers. This, too, is resorting to stereotype.

3) I am all for a strong military, it is not only a good system for the security of the nation, but it is also a great job's program. Most of the military is made up adults from low-income homes who would have had a hard time succeeding in the job market. The military trains these young adults very well, gives them job skills, gives them benefits, and teaches them to be responsible adults.

The claims this guy is making just arnt true about the military... our military budget isn't being slashed, the # of our military isn't be significantly decreased, and they get pay raises.

The other claims he is making, that illegals are getting access to benefits that they havnt earned, is true in broad strokes, but most of the specifics he gave are wrong. They are prohibited from many government welfare programs and certainly do not have the right to vote (although that idea is pushed by some liberal politicians). Again this is an argument that is reduced to stupidity levels, there is a serious issue with illegal immigration but it can't be addressed in a few sentences.... except by me :p We need to secure our borders, THEN we need to identify all illegals in the country to see who is a criminal ect., then we need to find a way not just towards citizenship but to integration into our society. Immigrants in general tend to be some of the hardest working people you will ever meet and our nation was founded on immigration... but it has to be done in an orderly manner.

I agreed with you entirely -- especially your "solution" to illegal immigration. A path to legal residency should be the goal of any immigration reform. Very well stated.

Any other questions? Keep in mind that while I am conservative, I am mostly a libertarian.

I don't think I'm putting words in your mouth by saying that we pretty much agree on all the essentials here. Our outlooks and opinions may differ, and we'd probably differ if it got down to specific plans and programs.

My objection to this little piece, and the reason I posted it in the first place, was to express my distaste for this particular outlook. And on that, too, we seem to agree.

Regardless, thanks for taking the time to respond and outline your views.

[watcher1]

Katie and I get lumped together a lot here (where's snowm?), and though we agree on many things, we also disagree on many things. Besides, she could kick my ass with one hand tied behind her back. (Though, now that I think about that, that sounds kinda hot.)

Katie kicking your ass may not be as hot as Katie and you in some type of wrestling match, maybe in mud or better yet, chocolate. I will make sure Katie is completely unarmed.... 

[MissBarbara]

Katie and I get lumped together a lot here (where's snowm?), and though we agree on many things, we also disagree on many things. Besides, she could kick my ass with one hand tied behind her back. (Though, now that I think about that, that sounds kinda hot.)

Katie kicking your ass may not be as hot as Katie and you in some type of wrestling match, maybe in mud or better yet, chocolate. I will make sure Katie is completely unarmed.... 

It may not be as hot to YOU...

But wrestling, well, I think I might have a fighting chance. Does Jello work for you?

[thetaxmancometh]

I am new to these boards, I don't lump anyone together. I used her words as yours since you said you agreed with her and I assumed that meant her entire comment.

Can you explain your view that talking about welfare involves racism? I honestly don't understand that, the original piece didn't in any way equate race with welfare. Racism is a serious issue and can't be thrown around as lightly as many do these days. Talking about race isn't racism. Stating that one race is inferior/superior to another is racism. People also tend to confuse culture with race and while they are linked (in that many of the same race share same/similar cultures), they arnt the same. I am not a cultural relativist anyway (little bit of a tangent, sorry).

Yup, we agree on most things... but that isn't surprising, the differences (as you stated) come down to implementation. I have used this example before and I like it:

A dam breaks and floods a community. The conservative's first response is "We need to fix that dam! Until it is fixed then the flooding won't stop and we will always have this problem!" The liberal's first response is "We need to help the people! They have no homes, their jobs are gone, we can help them!".  Both are good responses, both are needed responses, but both are capable of being vilified by the other side. We are a liberal democratic society, we all agree on damn near every issue... we just disagree on how to achieve said issue. We all agree that people need jobs, crime needs to decrease, students need to learn, ect. we just disagree on how to get there.

Conservatism and liberalism are both real philosophies and they both mean real things and I have no problem with having parties to represent both views. My problem is that we have a ton of politicians and very few statesmen... people in office just work to stay in office and most of them put bettering americans lives WAY down their list of priorities. I would really like an amendment that would impose term limits on senate/house as well (though we likely would have to grandfather in those already in office so they would support the bill). We have people like, well, Hilary who laughs that she hasn't driven a car or shopped for her own groceries in decades... well then how the hell do you feel like you can represent people?!?

Sorry, I am in a bad mood today and going on tangents.