Reasons to be conservative?

[Wrong Robot]

So I'm having a discussion with a friend of mine. An admitted 'liberal' who is basically of the mind that conservatives have never once been productive or beneficial to society. That at the end of the day, the conservative mindset is that of selfishness and reluctance to want to change or think forward to a better future.

I'm mostly liberal myself, but I refuse to believe that all conservatism is inherently bad and/or unproductive. I never thought I'd find myself defending conservatism, but this guy is kind of getting on my nerves, regardless, I'd like to see what people have to say about why they are or are not conservative.

(I should note, I hate the dichotomy between the two sides, political beliefs are far more varied than a simple right/left equation, but do what you can)

[groverat]

For one thing, conservatives don't start threads like this. ;)

[Protostar]

My reasons are:

-I'm for as small a gov't as possible. I wish for such things as medicare/medicaid, social security, and every other social program you can think of to be abolished.
-I wish for agencies such as OSHA,EPA,EEOC, and other various federal agencies to be abolished. They serve no purpose and only suck up money that could be better spent elsewhere, like on the military.
-I'm for a strong military
-I believe that homosexuality and abortions are abominations
and should be outlawed (in the case of homosexuals only homosexual marriage should be outlawed, for now.....)
-I believe that illegal immigrants should have no rights of a US citizen and that they should be denied any gov't assistance or services.
-I resist efforts of gun control. I believe all people should have access to the weapon of their choosing. If guns were outlawed criminals would still have access to weapons through the black market.
-I'm for repealing all discrimination laws as I feel they serve no purpose in the world today.

Can't think of any more at the moment.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

You're fourteen, aren't you?

[Protostar]

You're fourteen, aren't you?

No, I'm 17 and turn 18 on the eigth of July. Why do you ask?

[Aurora]

The Goverment has grown by leaps and bounds under Republicans, in fact so much its shocking. The Police state powers have done the same. Republicans policy's have taken a huge surplus from the Clinton years and turned into a Mountain of Debt. The American Taxpayer gets the Bill.

The Republicans enviromental policy is just as it was decades ago, let big business pollute all it wants and if it gets bad the taxpayer can get the bill for the cleanup.

Just the top 2 issues was enough to make me leave the Republicans. They are Spinning lies on so many issues its not funny anymore. Allowing higher mercury levels, allowing cancer causing gasoline additives to be used again when they were banned? it goes on and on. They dont seem to get it that we are stuck on this planet. So are our kids and it wont be much use if its all polluted. If this is Conservatism were is the Reason? It was replaced by Republican Dogma and Propaganda and Spin.

[rageous]

While I understand how one might interpret this thread as hunting grounds on conservatives and/or republicans (one doesn't equal the other folks), this thread is about the rationale for being conservative.

If one feels the need to HAVE to rail against conservatives and/or republicans, there are about 16,000 threads in PO dedicated to doing so. Let's keep that talk there, and let this thread go another course.

[Wrong Robot]

Right, I really don't want this to be a conservative bashing thread. The main intent is to unearth the core of the conservatism, what is that make people want to pursue it. My friend proclaims that is is fear of change, fear of the unknown, desire to control people/things, greed, general desire to simplify things and 'dumb it down' . All fairly nasty things to assign, but his support definitely followed through with that, I would be interested in how conservatism *doesn't* stem from that mindset.

Because already, protostar's assessment of why he's conservative *could* be interpreted that he's a greedy, power hungry, bigot with no desire to help anyone other than himself and those that agree with him. But I'm sure he doesn't think of himself that way, So how does he?

[Wrong Robot]

Originally posted by trumptman
My conservativism can probably be attributed in answering the following questions.

Is it possible to micromanage human freedom and human interaction?

If it isn't possible who pays for the mismanagement?

Now in answering these questions, it doesn't state that there isn't a role for government, but generally the larger the role they take, the more variables they have to consider. When attempting to micromanage these variables, they often cannot fully account for them and as a result come to horrible conclusions or force actions that harm rather than help people.

This problem increasingly comes from both sides of the political spectrum as you noted because as conservatives have been in power for a longer period of time and have been unable to shrink the government, they have begun to use it for their own purposes. Often these officials are not any better at micromanaging variables for conservative causes than liberals were for liberal causes.

So with liberals we complained about gun control, affirmative action, etc.

Now with conservative we can complain about Terry Schievo, medical marijuana, etc.

So for me, it basically amounts to who wants to micromanage more. Republicans generally claim they want to do this less but as more time passes, it is clear that this is not entirely true. So I've been drifting more towards libertarian views. However the big thing with libertarians that doesn't fly with me is the whole lack of nation-state reality. I'm still working through that a bit.

Nick


This was a source of much friction when I was discussing this with my friend. I repeatedly found myself saying "well dude, that's a lovely rosy scenario you have for a star trek universe, but that just isn't reality and we don't have the means to make it so"

The point that I was trying to make is that conservatism seems to stem from a realist perspective, favoring what is already here, rather than dreaming idly for a future that most likely cannot be achieved.

Naturally, his counter-argument was that dreamers are the ones who move the world, and without their influence we'd still be burning witches and women wouldn't be allowed to vote.(paraphrased hyperbole obviously, but you get the idea)

Now, my friend comes from a very 'conservative' family, he regularly deals with vitriolic arguments between the few family members that aren't conservative and the rest that are. His deductions are largely affected by having been surrounded by them and he could only sum up that they are greedy, lazy, and afraid to change.

To that I would say something like, well, if they don't see a need for change, then why should they work for it? To which the counter-argument is "are you kidding?! the world's a mess, people are starving all over, dictators oppressing people...etc." and then it comes back to the realism thing.

Shrug, it's an interesting debate, because at the end of the day, he may very well be right, that conservatives *are* generally more selfish by default, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing, I guess.

[NaplesX]

George W. Bush, if you look at his actions is more of a liberal Republican than anything else. So I am not sure if you measure conservatism by him you will get an accurate picture.

H's a politician, and as such, he is forced to ride the fence on many issues to gain as much support as possible. That's just the way it is.

[Wrong Robot]

I do not want to bring GWB into this discussion, because it's not about specific 'conservatives' as much as it is the core behind conservatism, why it exists, what it's *really* about...etc.

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by NaplesX
George W. Bush, if you look at his actions is more of a liberal Republican than anything else. dood, put down the crack pipe - you just used the terrible dirty L-word to describe your hero!
;)

mega-ironies aside, though - how on earth do you justify this? There's nothing "liberal" about anything this admin has done.

[shetline]

10] People won't think you're liberal.
9] You'll fit in better at Shriner's conventions.
8] More money, less guilt.
7] Lower gas mileage, less guilt.
6] You'd rather sleep with Anne Coulter than Janeane Garofalo.
5] You'd rather sleep with anyone more likely to shave her armpits than Janeane Garofalo.
4] Because Jesus was obviously a major proponent of supply-side economics.
3] You want to make sure that Anne Coulter doesn't marry Janeane Garofalo.
2] More war, less guilt.
1] All conservatives go to Heaven.

[groverat]

trumpt:

It's not about who micromanages and who doesn't. They both do.

The only reasonable thing to do then is to admit you micromanage and then look at it from the perspective of "I'm going to do it, now what's the best way" instead of the Republican, "I WANT SMALL GOVERNMENT! NO GOVERNMENT ANYWHERE!" while the policy is an about face.

It's just about being honest, really.

[Protostar]

Because already, protostar's assessment of why he's conservative *could* be interpreted that he's a greedy, power hungry, bigot with no desire to help anyone other than himself and those that agree with him. But I'm sure he doesn't think of himself that way, So how does he?

I don't understand what the problem is. Are we all not greedy in some way or another? Doesn't everyone crave power?
As for being a bigot, I don't consider myself a bigot and I don't understand why you'll do. I have no problem with helping people (so long as they helped me in the past) but I donot feel it right for the gov't to force me to help people through high taxes. I want to decided if the person I'm giving the money to is worthy of my generous gift. I don't want my money going to some crack whore in the projects who decided to have 3 and 4 kids with no way to take care of them. Likewise I view Social Security as a crutch. I don't want my money taking care of a bunch of old people who were too lazy and shortsighted to plan for their own retirement. As for my view on abortion I don't think its fair to allow a mother to kill her kid just because she was too illresponsible to practice safe sex. The pro-chioce(death) camp always is speaking about how women should have a choice and I agree with them. But the choice I am speaking of is whether or not to have sex not whether or not to kill your kid, which is what you are doing when you have an abortion. Illegal immigration must be crushed. Through tougher broder patrol and more severe treatment of the illegals who are already here. That's why I support denying them access to any services period, even if it's emergency healthcare. If you're not a US citizen you should have no access to any of the services provided to US citizens.

[BigMcLargehuge]

Originally posted by shetline
10] People won't think you're liberal.
9] You'll fit in better at Shriner's conventions.
8] More money, less guilt.
7] Lower gas mileage, less guilt.
6] You'd rather sleep with Anne Coulter than Janeane Garofalo.
5] You'd rather sleep with anyone more likely to shave her armpits than Janeane Garofalo.
4] Because Jesus was obviously a major proponent of supply-side economics.
3] You want to make sure that Anne Coulter doesn't marry Janeane Garofalo.
2] More war, less guilt.
1] All conservatives go to Heaven.

an additional 10 -

10] because you failed civics and history in high school (if you went to high school, but you probably didn't)
9] because you really fancy Pepe', the bare chested young slender pool cleaner at the country club but the feelings are so alien that you want to stamp those feelings out in everyone one else and rather than accept that some people are homosexual, go home and abuse your wife in the name of Jesus
8] because goddamn it you earned everything you have and no one is going to take it away and give it to freeloading blacks, Latinos, or teenage baby factories
7] because your daughter will never get knocked up in the backseat of a 74 Monte Carlo even though you've neglected to teach her the basic concepts of contraception and rely on her fear of damnation to act as birth control
6] because Jesus loves a winner, just like you
5] because you are blissfully ignorant of the world outside Fox news, and why shouldn't you be because America is the greatest country on Earth
4] because its much easier to give a shit about number one than anyone else outside your solipsitic sphere of perception
3] because leveling the playing field means giving the others an unfair advantage
2] because the government is meddling too much in our affairs when it comes to guns and business but no where near enough when it comes to sex
1] because won't somebody please think of the children

[Protostar]

10] because you failed civics and history in high school (if you went to high school, but you probably didn't)
9] because you really fancy Pepe', the bare chested young slender pool cleaner at the country club but the feelings are so alien that you want to stamp those feelings out in everyone one else and rather than accept that some people are homosexual, go home and abuse your wife in the name of Jesus
8] because goddamn it you earned everything you have and no one is going to take it away and give it to freeloading blacks, Latinos, or teenage baby factories
7] because your daughter will never get knocked up in the backseat of a 74 Monte Carlo even though you've neglected to teach her the basic concepts of contraception and rely on her fear of damnation to act as birth control
6] because Jesus loves a winner, just like you
5] because you are blissfully ignorant of the world outside Fox news, and why shouldn't you be because America is the greatest country on Earth
4] because its much easier to give a shit about number one than anyone else outside your solipsitic sphere of perception
3] because leveling the playing field means giving the others an unfair advantage
2] because the government is meddling too much in our affairs when it comes to guns and business but no where near enough when it comes to sex
1] because won't somebody please think of the children

I have presented valid points and the only thing you can do is make fun of them. You paint us all as heartless, closet gay, selfish, greedy monsters but that's not true. Is it so wrong to want my money not to go broken welfare programs? I don't think so. What if I categorized all liberals as spineless, bleeding heart, tree hugging, pinko commies? What would you say to that, eh?

[shetline]

Originally posted by Protostar
What if I categorized all liberals as spineless, bleeding heart, tree hugging, pinko commies? What would you say to that, eh?
Probably something like "Pfft. Typical conservative!" :D :lol: :devil:

[Wrong Robot]

You have yet to refute why you're not heartless, closet gay, greedy...etc. You simply put up 'valid reasons' that *could* be interpreted as coming from a (insert nasty implication). So why, *shouldn't* they be construed that way? Is what I'm asking.

[BigMcLargehuge]

Originally posted by Protostar
I have presented valid points and the only thing you can do is make fun of them. You paint us all as heartless, closet gay, selfish, greedy monsters but that's not true. Is it so wrong to want my money not to go broken welfare programs? I don't think so. What if I categorized all liberals as spineless, bleeding heart, tree hugging, pinko commies? What would you say to that, eh?

I'd say that's about the way we are catagorized. So what's your point?

[Existence]

Berkeley recently did an excellent study on what it means to be a conservative. Here's a link of highlights:

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml

[Protostar]

You have yet to refute why you're not heartless, closet gay, greedy...etc. You simply put up 'valid reasons' that *could* be interpreted as coming from a (insert nasty implication). So why, *shouldn't* they be construed that way? Is what I'm asking.

I don't consider myself heartless. What's more heartless:letting people keeping more of their hard earned money through lower taxes or taxing them to death to pay for someone else's mistakes?

As for the closet gay comment believe me if I started having feelings for the same sex I would not be posting here or doing anything else for that matter. I'd kill myself before I let such thoughts fester in my mind. Greed is natural. It is natural for a human being to think of themselves first.I could understand not thinking of yourself if you have a wife and/or children but I have (and hopefully will never have) no such things so why is it so wrong to think of myself?

[BigMcLargehuge]

Originally posted by Protostar
I don't consider myself heartless. What's more heartless:letting people keeping more of their hard earned money through lower taxes or taxing them to death to pay for someone else's mistakes?

The fact that you can even type that response, with what I imagine as a straight face, says more about conservatism that is negative than anything I could possibly type.

As for the closet gay comment believe me if I started having feelings for the same sex I would not be posting here or doing anything else for that matter. I'd kill myself before I let such thoughts fester in my mind. Greed is natural. It is natural for a human being to think of themselves first.I could understand not thinking of yourself if you have a wife and/or children but I have (and hopefully will never have) no such things so why is it so wrong to think of myself?

It's not wrong, it's merely supremely selfish. At some point in your life, assuming you survive puberty, you will realize that the vast majority of daily life revolves around collective action whether it's working as part of a team at your job, figuring out family finances, even buying groceries. But that's on the micro level. On the macro level I am going to assume you've never been someone in need, and for that you should either thank your hard working parents, or shoot yourself in the face (if you are a trust fund baby). People are not poor solely because they can't manage money. To the contrary the vast majority of wealth is unevenly distributed ON PURPOSE. It's called "structured inequality" and is the driving engine behind our capitalist model here in the USA. As far as taxes go, the services you rely on, like police, fire departments, mail delivery, even the salaries of your mayor, city council, teachers, etc are all paid for via taxes. it's not merely one hand taking "money from your pocket" and handing it to someone else. if you had even an inkling of how the US budget breaks down or, god forbid, the tax system, you might almost have something resembling a clue. But you don't.

As for killing yourself if you decide you're gay - Why wait? The world needs one more homophobe stealing precious oxygen from the rest of us like the French needed to face an additional million Germans at Verdun.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Protostar
I don't consider myself heartless. What's more heartless:letting people keeping more of their hard earned money through lower taxes or taxing them to death to pay for someone else's mistakes?

As for the closet gay comment believe me if I started having feelings for the same sex I would not be posting here or doing anything else for that matter. I'd kill myself before I let such thoughts fester in my mind. Greed is natural. It is natural for a human being to think of themselves first.I could understand not thinking of yourself if you have a wife and/or children but I have (and hopefully will never have) no such things so why is it so wrong to think of myself?

Taxing them to death? compared to keeping more of their "hard earned money"?

:rolleyes:

Where are you rushing young angry man?

[hardeeharhar]

That was awesome BigMcLargehuge!

[Protostar]

The fact that you can even type that response, with what I imagine as a straight face, says more about conservatism that is negative than anything I could possibly type.

I just don't understand. Take a woman who lives in the projects. She can barely take care of herself but gets pregnant. Then she gets pregnant three more times for a total of four kids. Are you actually saying that more money should be taken out of my paycheck to take care of this simpleton? I don't feel it fair to force people to take care of others living expenses through taxes. I guess you do so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

People are not poor solely because they can't manage money.

Exactly alot of people are poor because they can't manage money. Believe me, I have people in my family like this.


To the contrary the vast majority of wealth is unevenly distributed ON PURPOSE. It's called "structured inequality" and is the driving engine behind our capitalist model here in the USA.

So in your perfect world all of the wealth would distributed evenly? Hmmmm....that sounds suspiciously close to an economic system that was tried before. You know in Russia? And as I recall that system failed, MISERABLY!

As far as taxes go, the services you rely on, like police, fire departments, mail delivery, even the salaries of your mayor, city council, teachers, etc are all paid for via taxes.

You think I didn't know that? That's why I said lower taxes instead of no taxes.

if you had even an inkling of how the US budget breaks down or, god forbid, the tax system, you might almost have something resembling a clue.

I know the tax system unfairly penalizes you the wealthier you become which isn't fair. I propose a proportional income tax of 15% across the board. A great deal of the US budget is used to fund stupid programs like SS and Medicare/Medicaid. That money could be better spent elsewhere.

As for killing yourself if you decide you're gay - Why wait? The world needs one more homophobe stealing precious oxygen from the rest of us like the French needed to face an additional million Germans at Verdun.

I could say the same thing about homosexuals but then that would make me a bigot, wouldn't it? :)

[BigMcLargehuge]

Originally posted by Protostar
I just don't understand. Take a woman who lives in the projects. She can barely take care of herself but gets pregnant. Then she gets pregnant three more times for a total of four kids. Are you actually saying that more money should be taken out of my paycheck to take care of this simpleton? I don't feel it fair to force people to take care of others living expenses through taxes. I guess you do so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Nice strawman... How about a family whose breadwinner gets terminal cancer? How about being born into a family who has no economic opportunities because the manufacturing jobs that used to sustain the town/city have moved to Mexico, Indonesia, or China? How about people who suffered through a natural disaster and lost everything? There are a thousand anecdotes that could be used to describe poor people and how they became poor. You just picked the Rush Limbaugh one, why doesn't that surprise me.

Exactly alot of people are poor because they can't manage money. Believe me, I have people in my family like this.

Perhaps your family was lucky enough to be born into an area that isn't economically depressed. But then, perhaps like so many other Americans, your poor money managing family members fell into the credit trap. Now that YOUR conservative lawmakers have made bankruptcy a near impossiblity though they are slaves to their creditors. You simply aren't old enough to have faced the realities of running a household, so your point is not only ignorant to the extreme, it's astoundingly stupid.

So in your perfect world all of the wealth would distributed evenly? Hmmmm....that sounds suspiciously close to an economic system that was tried before. You know in Russia? And as I recall that system failed, MISERABLY!

I never said what economic system I favored. But then, contrapositively, there are dozens of socially democratic goverments that DO manage to at the very least meet the basic requirements for life of their citizens, and yes, it's based on a progressive tax system. But then, that's why we have so many French, Sweded, Swiss, Germans, Portuguese, and Norwegians sneaking over the border to escape their oppressive tax structure. The model you seem to favor is showing its true colors right now in Russia and the rest of the CIS.


You think I didn't know that? That's why I said lower taxes instead of no taxes

Tell you what, you tell me what percentage of the average taxpayer's payroll tax goes towards these incidious social programs, and compare that to what percent goes to the military, and pork spending.

I know the tax system unfairly penalizes you the wealthier you become which isn't fair. I propose a proportional income tax of 15% across the board. A great deal of the US budget is used to fund stupid programs like SS and Medicare/Medicaid. That money could be better spent elsewhere.

Actually, it doesn't. It's a graduated tax (look it up, they might have a pop-up book in your childrens library that explains the concept) where the wealthier Americans pay less percentage wise. The wealthier also have access to tax shelters like trusts and offshore leasing that the less wealthy do not. A 15% across the board tax, a flat tax, is a, say it with me now, regressive tax, because 15% of a 35k earner's salary is much greater in ratio to the 15% of a 250k earner. Factor in the cost of living, food, heat, electricity, rent/mortgage, transportation, etc... and 15% cripples the 35k earner.

Oh, and there are a hell of a lot more 35k earners than there are 250k earners so the shortfall would have to come from somewhere.

I could say the same thing about homosexuals but then that would make me a bigot, wouldn't it? :)

Believe me, I make no bones about it. I am a bigot. I hate all conseratives. I'd happily gas you all.

[NaplesX]

The real problem with politics as I see it:

1. People are not honest. Sure, it seems like an obvious enough comment, but they are not honest with themselves. We all make decisions that can involve conservative and/or liberal thought. Often things need to be done in a liberal or conservative way based on how a problem was handled previously and depending on the results of such action. conservatives need liberals just as liberals need conservatives - balance is key. The other thing people on both sides are not honest about is, when they're wrong or when the other side is right. We need to get beyond that real quick.

2. This process we call politics are for the betterment of all (focusing on US politics). That means you, me, the rich, the poor, right, left... whoever. That ide has been lost.

[Wrong Robot]

That's the 2nd time you've posted something leading towards derailment of the thread. Do you not understand the topic?

Not that your points aren't valid, but they really don't have anything to do with why someone would be conservative now do they? If they do, and perhaps you just did a poor job expressing that, then by all means, restate what you're trying to say.

[BRussell]

My impression from talking to Republicans (like the entire BRussell extended family) is that they are conservatives because they feel government does too much and needs to do less. We can all say that Republicans in reality spend more than Democrats, and that because they cut taxes they increase the debt which also indirectly increases spending, and that Republicans probably want more control over your private life than Democrats, yadda yadda. But if you believe in smaller, less intrusive government, you're a Republican. That's just the branding that Republicans™ have achieved, accurate or not.

There's also a kind of cultural distance they feel between themselves and liberals. They tend to be religious and see liberals as antagonistic to religion, or if not religious, they hold more traditional views of things than they perceive liberals to hold.

Both conservatives and liberals define themselves at least partially, maybe largely, as the opposite of a caricature of the other side. They think of liberals as holding weird beliefs like being nice to criminals and terrorists and supporting baby murder and people of the same sex getting married. They don't agree with those things, hence they're conservative.

[Wrong Robot]

Right! and that's why this issue is so muddled. It seems like the definitions are less about what they actually believe, but more about the fact that they don't believe what 'the other side' believes.

What I'm trying to investigate is the core tenements of conservative thought. Where it comes from, but more specifically, is it really inherently 'bad' and/or unproductive.

So, From talking to my friend, we've come up with many ideas. I personally favor a smaller, less intrusive government, I think that the government should be a vessel for legislature and paperwork, not so much mandating what people can and cannot do. This view puts me squarely in the 'conservative' mindset with regards to the overall government role. But, I'm very 'liberal' on near everything else and I think the current administration is quite possibly the worst thing to happen to the united states in all our history.

I don't think it's an inherently bad thing to strive to be self-reliant, supporting and independent, which is what I see conservatism as being. My friend believes that type of outlook is inherently selfish and unproductive, and that it's based on a fear of change and/or fear to make change.

Thus far, the 'conservative' input in this thread has been pithy at best to refute that.

The other thing that I ascribe to conservatives, which I think is ultimately kind of funny. Is that conservatives just don't bother thinking about this stuff most of the time, they don't need to, their mindset is wrought from a more practical and utilitarian sense, and there isn't room for analysis. :p

[BRussell]

Here's (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=242) one current analysis of the American electorate. It has some good fodder for political discussion. It also has a nice little quiz that you can take to see where you stand in comparison to everyone else.

Take the quiz! (http://typology.people-press.org/typology/) What's the matter, are you chicken?

[Existence]

Originally posted by Wrong Robot

What I'm trying to investigate is the core tenements of conservative thought. Where it comes from, but more specifically, is it really inherently 'bad' and/or unproductive.

If you read the Berkeley scholarly study I linked (http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml), it nicely sums up where conservative thought comes from


Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

* Fear and aggression
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
* Uncertainty avoidance
* Need for cognitive closure
* Terror management

As for being "inherently bad and/or unproductive", that's a subjective value judgement.

[Wrong Robot]

I did read your link, and while it provided some thoughts, I created this thread with the intent of hearing from actual 'conservatives' who would stand up and defend their position, and perhaps provide solid 'whys' and at best give on example to where a greedy, fearful, control freak...etc. mentality is a good thing.

[Protostar]

Nice strawman... How about a family whose breadwinner gets terminal cancer? How about being born into a family who has no economic opportunities because the manufacturing jobs that used to sustain the town/city have moved to Mexico, Indonesia, or China? How about people who suffered through a natural disaster and lost everything? There are a thousand anecdotes that could be used to describe poor people and how they became poor. You just picked the Rush Limbaugh one, why doesn't that surprise me.

So everyone has to suffer with higher taxes just because of some families (who are in the small minority of the population) fall on hard times? Hardly fair if you ask me.

Perhaps your family was lucky enough to be born into an area that isn't economically depressed. But then, perhaps like so many other Americans, your poor money managing family members fell into the credit trap. Now that YOUR conservative lawmakers have made bankruptcy a near impossiblity though they are slaves to their creditors. You simply aren't old enough to have faced the realities of running a household, so your point is not only ignorant to the extreme, it's astoundingly stupid.

The credit trap? Is that what the libs are calling it these days? I have no sympathy for people with bad credit. There is simply no excuse for it. Everyone gets these credit cards, charges them to the max, and then complain when the credit card bills start coming in. What do you think is going to happen? Its called responsibility! The probrem with the liberals is they want to excuse people from their responsiblities. Instead of holding people accountable for their own mistakes you want to point fingers at the credit card companies. What did they do wrong? Noone forced those in credit card debt to sign the agreement. Noone held a gun to their head and said "you better sign this or else." They deserve to be slaves to their creditors because of their lack of foresight and self control. My parents run our household great and guess what: they do it without using any credit card. That's right, my parents have little if any credit card debt. So it can be done, it may not be easy, but it can be done.

I never said what economic system I favored. But then, contrapositively, there are dozens of socially democratic goverments that DO manage to at the very least meet the basic requirements for life of their citizens, and yes, it's based on a progressive tax system. But then, that's why we have so many French, Sweded, Swiss, Germans, Portuguese, and Norwegians sneaking over the border to escape their oppressive tax structure. The model you seem to favor is showing its true colors right now in Russia and the rest of the CIS.

And France and Germany's unemployment is much higher than ours. I wonder why that is. Could it be that the high taxes that the libs always are saying are necessary to run the country is ruining the economy? Naw, couldn't be.:rolleyes:

Call me an idiot again and I'm telling your mom. Tell you what, you tell me what percentage of the average taxpayer's payroll tax goes towards these incidious social programs, and compare that to what percent goes to the military, and pork spending.

http://a255.g.akamaitech.net/7/255/2422/07feb20051415/www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/pdf/budget/hhs.pdf

That link is for the Dept. of Health and etc.

http://a255.g.akamaitech.net/7/255/2422/07feb20051415/www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/pdf/budget/defense.pdf

That link is for the Dept. of Defense

Which one gets more funding? That's what I thought. Now shut the hell up.

Actually, it doesn't. It's a graduated tax (look it up, they might have a pop-up book in your childrens library that explains the concept) where the wealthier Americans pay less percentage wise. The wealthier also have access to tax shelters like trusts and offshore leasing that the less wealthy do not. A 15% across the board tax, a flat tax, is a, say it with me now, regressive tax, because 15% of a 35k earner's salary is much greater in ratio to the 15% of a 250k earner. Factor in the cost of living, food, heat, electricity, rent/mortgage, transportation, etc... and 15% cripples the 35k earner.

A flat tax is fair because it takes the same proportion from each taxpayer regardless of earnings. This is much fairer than the graduated tax system. A true regressive tax would more money from a lower wage earner than from a higher. An example would be taking 40% from someone who earns $50000 while taking 30% from someone who makes $100000

Believe me, I make no bones about it. I am a bigot. I hate all conseratives. I'd happily gas you all.

And I hate all liberals, so we can at least agree that we hate each other.

[Protostar]

I'm a enterpriser. Wooh!

[e1618978]

The test said that I am an enterpriser also, but I don't really fit the profile perfectly (being a pro-gay rights athiest).

Here is my take on the thread - political views have three dimensions -
social (conservative -> liberal)
financial (conservative -> liberal)
foreign policy (isolationist -> diplomat -> hawk).

I am socially a liberal, financially a conservative, and a foreign policy "hawk".

The republican party (as it exists today in power) is Socially conservative, financially liberal, and hawkish on foreign policy. This pattern of beliefs is what I call the "steel workers union" (damn homos! Them feriners are taking our jobs! Kill free trade! Bomb the arabs!).

I am basically forced to support the republicans, because there is not political party that matches my beliefs, and I think that the social rights of Americans (gay rights etc) are going to work out regardless of who gets elected. It is kind of sweet that the most conservative supreme court justices are the ones most likely to say yes to gay marriage (because all men are created equal, and conservatives revere the constitution). If you don't believe me on this look at who dissented on the recent medical marajuana decision.


Reasons to be socially conservative
-----------------------------------

- none. Social conservatives suck ass.

Reasons to be finacially conservative
-------------------------------------

- Our wealth will not survive an ever expanding government
- Oppressive government undermines the creativity and entreneurial spirit of the country
- Low taxes will attract educated immegrants and spur job growth
- Good judgement and risk taking should be rewarded, because these things make the country stronger
- You are not truely free if a large government is watching over your shoulder and trying to protect you from yourself.

Reasons to be a foreign policy hawk
-----------------------------------

- Foreign aid to poor countries is absorbed by corruption
- We can only get the countries into good political shape via force
- If we don't get them going soon, their land will be taken to grow bio diesel, and the people there will all die
- If we use the military to turn these countries into democracies with freedom of speach, etc, they will soon be contributing to scientific progress.

[groverat]

The test says I am "Liberal". Shocking!

trumpt:

You say the person who says they are anti-big government will get your vote.

Do you believe that they can actually act independent of their larger party aims? i.e. - Is Republican "small government" talk actually meaningful in any way that would make you, as a voter, feel satisfied with your own voting choice?

As far as "leaning" Libertarian; remember what Jesus says, "I would that ye were hot or cold."

You can't be a little pregnant. ;)

[NaplesX]

Enterpriser here too.

Although sometimes, I did not agree with either statement. Had to kinda force a leaning one way or the other.

[BigMcLargehuge]

http://a255.g.akamaitech.net/7/255/2422/07feb20051415/www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/pdf/budget/hhs.pdf

That link is for the Dept. of Health and etc.

http://a255.g.akamaitech.net/7/255/2422/07feb20051415/www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/pdf/budget/defense.pdf

That link is for the Dept. of Defense

Which one gets more funding? That's what I thought. Now shut the hell up.

The question wasn't which one gets more funding, it was what percentage of payroll tax goes to social programs and which percentage goes to military spending/pork programs.

Also, you are apparently poor at mathematics. Perhaps you didn't notice that while HHS takes in an operating budget of 67.2 billion, the Dept of Def takes in 419.3 Billion, which means that Dept of Dep takes in 352.1 billion MORE than HHS. Also, the Dept of Def budget does not include the cost of the war in Iraq, some 800 BILLION dollars of taxpayer money...

edited for personal attacks. -rageous

[BRussell]

Originally posted by groverat
The test says I am "Liberal". Shocking! Interesting how things change over the years. :p

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Wrong Robot
That's the 2nd time you've posted something leading towards derailment of the thread. Do you not understand the topic?

Not that your points aren't valid, but they really don't have anything to do with why someone would be conservative now do they? If they do, and perhaps you just did a poor job expressing that, then by all means, restate what you're trying to say. No purposeful attempt at derailment here - I just think that none of us should be so set on declaring "I'm liberal" or "I'm a conservative". I think that all issues should be approached from an, what's best for everyone or what can we all agree upon that's best for everyone, angle. We should be "conservative" or "liberal" when the occasion or circumstance calls for it.

My points are extremely valid to this conversation because these days being "liberal" equates to being totally anti-republican, much like being "conservative" is being equated to being "extreme-religious". So if it were me, I would discourage any of my friends from putting on either of those hats.

Most liberals here can't palate the thought of actually agreeing with any "conservative" idea, no matter how sensible or how reasonably it might be presented. They will latch on to any speck if information that makes "conservatism" look bad. They have adopted intellectually dishonest talking points simply to further their political agenda. They will point out bad behavior to to justify their own bad behavior. Don't get me wrong, It happens on both ends, but any objective examination of the political environment will yield a lopsided attack score in favor of the left at this point in time. Much like what happened back during the Clinton impeachment.

I know that I am loosing most here to the urge to trash and marginalize. But I beg a little indulgence here.

All of this is creating is an environment that breeds contention and resultless argument with the only objective being damaging the opponent. The problem with that is, THE VERY POLITICAL SYSTEM THAT MADE THE US GREAT IS MAKING THE US WEAK.. Every enemy or potential enemy of the US is seeing the weakness caused by infighting as an invitation to challenge it's greatness. And other countries around the world question it's position of leadership.

Each and every day that we post here or communicate with people we know and don't, we either add to the devision and conflict or add to unity and peace. We all do our little part that eventually adds up to global-level conflict or peace.

I look at the large virtual community here in AI and except for PO we all get along and help one another in very admirable ways. Having said that, this very discussion has come down to this...
Originally posted by BigMcLargehuge
Believe me, I make no bones about it. I am a bigot. I hate all conseratives. I'd happily gas you all.
...likely directed at "conservatives" he possibly helped in another thread on some mundane Mac issue.

I really think we all need to stop considering ourselves and others "liberal" or "conservative" ahead of being human or Democrat and Republican over being American, and so on...

I for one ,would love to see PO become a place that other forums only dream of being - a place where "liberals" and "conservatives" come to have intelligent, honest, meaningful, and productive conversation. We certainly have enough intelligent people here to accomplish that.

[fahlman]

Originally posted by BigMcLargehuge
How about a family whose breadwinner gets terminal cancer? How about being born into a family who has no economic opportunities because the manufacturing jobs that used to sustain the town/city have moved to Mexico, Indonesia, or China? How about people who suffered through a natural disaster and lost everything? There are a thousand anecdotes that could be used to describe poor people and how they became poor. You just picked the Rush Limbaugh one, why doesn't that surprise me. He's picked the one that I believe is the waste of tax dollars. My own brother is a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic by no fault of his own. People with a sickness, mental and/or physical should be supported by tax payer’s dollars. It's the lazy do nothings that know there are social programs they can fall back on that deserve to have no help. I have a single, female friend that has had three children. Her rent, food, etc are paid for by federal tax dollars. Her children wear new Tommy Hillfiger clothes and have more toys than they could ever play with, have a new computer and cable television. I work for a living, pay taxes. I can't afford Tommy Hillfiger clothes, my children wear hand-me-down from a friends daughter, and I don't have cable television because I have to pay for food and my mortgage because I don't receive food stamps or live in government assisted living. Why does she have the luxuries that I can't afford when I pay for her to have them?

Originally posted by BigMcLargehuge
Perhaps your family was lucky enough to be born into an area that isn't economically depressed. But then, perhaps like so many other Americans, your poor money managing family members fell into the credit trap. Now that YOUR conservative lawmakers have made bankruptcy a near impossiblity though they are slaves to their creditors. You simply aren't old enough to have faced the realities of running a household, so your point is not only ignorant to the extreme, it's astoundingly stupid. I'm old enough. I pay my bills one at a time, little by little sometimes, if necessary. If I mismanage my money I don't expect the federal government and you to pick up my slack. You do realize if I file bankruptcy you will pay a price because the company I stiffed will get paid, as it deserves to, by increased prices for its products or services because they have employees with families who need insurance and food and shelter and clothing and…

Originally posted by BigMcLargehuge
Call me an idiot again and I'm telling your mom. Tell you what, you tell me what percentage of the average taxpayer's payroll tax goes towards these incidious social programs, and compare that to what percent goes to the military, and pork spending. The military is under funded and one of the few program the federal government should control along with the interstate road system. Other item should be controlled state by state. Let's cut out the pork. To save money my state, Indiana, is currently trying to close BMVs which it has determined cost more to operate than it’s worth for the small amount of people they serve. People are bitchin' they might have to drive an extra 15 minutes, but they are also bitchin' that taxes are too high. Make a choice.

Originally posted by BigMcLargehuge
look it up, they might have a pop-up book in your childrens library that explains the concept...I hate all conseratives. I'd happily gas you al. When called names you call names. Funny. Gas someone because they believe different than you. Remind you of someone? Please control your temper as all adults should be able to do when in a heated discussion.

[fahlman]

Just to show that I'm not a cold hearted conservative. I donate money to my local homeless shelter. I donate books I've owned and read to the public library. I donate to the MS Society, March of Dimes, Cancer Society, and American Heart Association, in addition to the local Christian radio station. Would you like to see my checkbook to prove it?

The publications that I am a part owner publishes an abundance of editorial at no cost to not-for-profit organizations when I could be running editorial from a potential advertiser, therefore making him more likely to advertise.

I also employ people at a decent wage with insurance paid for at 100% by my company for all full time employees. In fact my employees make almost as much as I do.

[Splinemodel]

Originally posted by Wrong Robot
So I'm having a discussion with a friend of mine. An admitted 'liberal' who is basically of the mind that conservatives have never once been productive or beneficial to society.

I tend to agree, in the sense that societies with limited goverments have always been wonderfully successful, and that, generally speaking, societies have grown incresingly more "liberal" for thousands of years.

The caveat is that by "liberal" i mean less restricted and more free. Modern-day quasi-socialists, also known a greens, liberal-dems, etc don't really advocate a liberal society. They champion a very restricted lifestyle where governments are deeply involved in economics, welfare programs, and even social paradigms. In Denmark, a great "liberal" nation, there are restrictions on what names one can give his child: this isn't going to kill anyone, but it's an overwhelmingly conservative ideology. In America, whistle-blowers for the political-correctness "movement" have gone way too far.

The modern American "liberal" detests freedom. He craves a sheltered social forum where the meaning of good taste, proper discourse, and -- above all -- individual spending habits are governed by some vague, central authority that is mysteriously in-line with the median opinion of the Northeastern lierati. We can cut to the chase and call this entity "NPR."

And the dems will never have more than a token presence in the future of American politics until they can eschew their will to impose a very regional attitude across a nation of culturally diverse states. It is an ironic twist that the modern "liberal" is the fiercest opponent of truly independent thought, consumer choice, and, above all, diversity that's beyond skin-deep.

An American conservative is, ultimately, someone who thinks that the country would be better off with a truly liberal set of guidelines: The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and the general philosophy of John Locke and his 17th/18th century dedicates.

So, I am an American conservative in that I am a proponent of excessively liberal doctrine.

[groverat]

BRussell:

Interesting how things change over the years.

Christ, man, you're telling me.

I was 17 when I first started posting on this godforsaken website. 1998. Seems like forever ago.

[groverat]

trumpt:

Would you say that this statement fits where you are politically?

"There is no reason to accept the doctrines crafted to sustain power and privilege, or to believe that we are constrained by mysterious and unknown social laws. These are simply decisions made within institutions that are subject to human will and that must face the test of legitimacy. And if they do not meet the test, they can be replaced by other institutions that are more free and more just, as has happened often in the past."

[groverat]

It says it is all subject to "human will".

And if you propose laws that would exist outside of popular will (i.e. - if the people decided that wanted Communism), you do actually support a government that does not actually answer to the people. So you're back to the point of accepting a semi-Nanny-state and working with it with logical honesty.

[DanMacMan]

I used to be a hard lined Conservative. But I find that the more I age and grow, the more of a Libertarian I become. The Government's role in our daily lives should be as limited as possible. Keep my taxes low, don't overly increase the deficit, quit creating government social welfare programs that don't work and waste tax dollars, defend our country when necessary, and stay the hell out of my life.

The World's Smallest Political Quiz (http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html)

[shetline]

Originally posted by Splinemodel
In Denmark, a great "liberal" nation, there are restrictions on what names one can give his child: this isn't going to kill anyone, but it's an overwhelmingly conservative ideology.
I rather doubt you'd find many American liberals who'd go along with that.
In America, whistle-blowers for the political-correctness "movement" have gone way too far.

The modern American "liberal" detests freedom. He craves a sheltered social forum where the meaning of good taste, proper discourse, and -- above all -- individual spending habits are governed by some vague, central authority that is mysteriously in-line with the median opinion of the Northeastern lierati. We can cut to the chase and call this entity "NPR."
I think you can find plenty of voices even on NPR who wouldn't want to have anything to do with such a freedom-limiting system.

If you're going to define liberalism (as you see it practiced under that name in the US) by the nuttiest of the PC thought police, I'd say that I'm far, far more justified defining American conservatism in terms the Republican religious right -- a group for whom "freedom" seems to mean very little outside of business deregulation, quite ready to sacrifice any freedoms outside of the freedom to accumulate wealth on the altar of the Patriot Act and the "War Against Terrorism", and eager to use the force of law to take freedoms away from anyone who isn't intent on living a "proper Christian" lifestyle.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by DanMacMan
I used to be a hard lined Conservative. But I find that the more I age and grow, the more of a Libertarian I become. The Government's role in our daily lives should be as limited as possible. Keep my taxes low, don't overly increase the deficit, quit creating government social welfare programs that don't work and waste tax dollars, defend our country when necessary, and stay the hell out of my life.

The World's Smallest Political Quiz (http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html) The test says I'm borderline libertarian/centrist with a slight conservative leaning.

[groverat]

I really don't know how you can characterize revolutionary movements as inherently Communistic when we are both sitting inside a democratic republic born of revolution.

Your insistence on focusing on Communism out of thin air is telling as to your overall mindset, I think, because even now it's still the bogeyman hiding behind every door and lurking in every shadow. It's nonsense.

There's obviously a problem with utopian dreams turning into nightmares, but that is not exclusive in any way to Communism. It's pretty lazy intellectually to try to dismiss any social awareness as totalitarian Communism.

What is the real difference between the statement I quoted and, say, the Declaration of Independence?

The main difference, I guess, would be that the statement I quoted isn't a document geared to secure a nation that was to be designed from the outset to be controlled by the propertied, the wealthy and the slave-owning. Aside from that it's basically the same idea.

[shetline]

Originally posted by DanMacMan
The World's Smallest Political Quiz (http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html)
I came out CENTRIST. Personal 80%, Economic 50%... the exact upper-lefthand corner of the Centrist square, right on the border between Liberal and Libertarian.

[Splinemodel]

Originally posted by shetline
If you're going to define liberalism (as you see it practiced under that name in the US) by the nuttiest of the PC thought police. . .

The point I'm making is that these "thought police" are considered to be "very liberal," when in fact they're not liberal at all. Going back to the original post, I can't see how this definition of liberalism can be lumped into the postulate, "liberals make the world better, conservatives don't." In the same vein I could say that "some conservatives make the world better, others don't." The definitions are totally jumbled these days to the point where everyone needs to reference the "world's simplest political quiz."

[rageous]

Libertairan.

Personal: 100%
Economic: 90%

[fahlman]

CONSERVATIVE

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 30%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 90%.

I'll sleep well tonight know I'm still the person I thought I was. Ahhhhhh......

[Aquatic]

Here is something I never understood. Conservatives always want smaller government. And privacy especially! They hate those spooks!

But they want a huge military, and severe criminal penalties. They want the "PATRIOT Act" and a huge CIA/FBI intelligence community, with powers to track everything we do.

Is that not a contradiction? First of all for the privacy/civil rights/freedom of speech which they so cherish issues. Secondly, the military-industrial complex is our largest expenditure. How the fuck is that conservative?!

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Aquatic
Here is something I never understood. Conservatives always want smaller government. And privacy especially! They hate those spooks!

But they want a huge military, and severe criminal penalties. They want the "PATRIOT Act" and a huge CIA/FBI intelligence community, with powers to track everything we do.

Is that not a contradiction? First of all for the privacy/civil rights/freedom of speech which they so cherish issues. Secondly, the military-industrial complex is our largest expenditure. How the fuck is that conservative?! Not only that, but Republicans spend more than Democrats, and that's true even if you exclude military spending. And they want bigger government when it comes to things like abortion and sodomy laws and all that.

It used to be easy to say that Democrats wanted bigger government on economics but Republicans wanted bigger government in social issues. That was never true, but the waters were muddied a bit because Democrats controlled the House during the Reagan years. But now, under Bush, there's no longer any area where Republicans provide less government than Democrats.

Republicans are without question the party of big government.

[Outsider]

I scored liberal on both tests. 5 years ago i would have been a centrist. It's true; with age you do grow wiser.

[MACchine]

Originally posted by Outsider
I scored liberal on both tests. 5 years ago i would have been a centrist. It's true; with age you do grow wiser.


Or get senile !!! :D

[MACchine]

iii Wo0oW !!! I scored 40 and 100% that puts me WELL to the RIGHT and only 10% away from touching the Librarians.


I AM SOOOO PROUD OF MYSELF !!!

PRIVATIZE Social Security NOW !


OK, all kidding aside MUST SAY SOMETHING VERY POLITICAL HERE:

I think that 9/11 was an inside job by the CIA, the president may have known about it but I don't think he has any choice.

Here is the plot and why I think this...

1. When George Bush senior was in office running for the second term, he just gave up, he quit. I don't know why people accepted him doing this, it was soo out of character. In his first term most people thought his campaigning would be too weak and he would loose even though he was VP, but then he started to fight dirty, he put out some mean TV adds and he won the primaries.

But going against Clinton he just gave up, and now we find out what friends they are. Well, what if Bush senior, I NEVER liked him to slimy, while in the CIA made this plan that we are living through now that would take us to defending Israel completely, bringing down Sadam, and eventually moving in on China, perhaps ICBMs from bases in Iraq. And help defend India from Pakistan.

2. I once watched Greenspan on TV a few months before 9/11 and he made it clear he thought some big disaster was coming that would destroy our currency.

3. I think Clinton being a lame duck with the military to create a public mandate for a stronger military and Bush Junior having a military cabinet was all planned far in advance.

4. I don't know what the game is with the currency but I think we will all find out in the next 2 or 3 years.

I think Alex Brown of Infowars.com has some accurate information but he takes the conspiracy too far I think its all about the CIA which controls the President and the military from the inside.

[MACchine]

Originally posted by groverat
The test says I am "Liberal". Shocking!

trumpt:

You say the person who says they are anti-big government will get your vote.

Do you believe that they can actually act independent of their larger party aims? i.e. - Is Republican "small government" talk actually meaningful in any way that would make you, as a voter, feel satisfied with your own voting choice?

As far as "leaning" Libertarian; remember what Jesus says, "I would that ye were hot or cold."

You can't be a little pregnant. ;)


"You can't be a little pregnant." EXACTLY that's why the liberal conspiracy is SOOOO insiderous.

I have NIGHTMARES about waking up strapped to a toucher table in a room full of bright lights and being forced to listen to Barbara Strysand sing "People who NEEEEEEEEED People !!!" :p


I am seeing double and I don't know why !!!

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by BRussell
Republicans are without question the party of big government. Every-time republicans try to cut programs, or reduce growth, liberals go apesh** and call them "baby eaters" or "grandma-killers"

Remember this whole thing... every year?:


http://edition.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/bush.budget.01/
http://archive.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Budget%202003
http://archive.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Budget%202004
http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/2005budget/
http://www.democrats.org/bushbudget/

The US budget grows every year - every program has built in growth. So a president that did nothing would still grow the budget, simply out of inaction.

So I think you meant that Democrats are without question the party of big government, since the only thing they do is block all cuts. They thus do nothing to stop growth and everything to keep continue it.

[MACchine]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Every-time republicans try to cut programs, or reduce growth, liberals go apesh** and call them "baby eaters" or "grandma-killers"

Remember this whole thing... every year?:


http://edition.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/bush.budget.01/
http://archive.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Budget%202003
http://archive.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Budget%202004
http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/2005budget/
http://www.democrats.org/bushbudget/

The US budget grows every year - every program has built in growth. So a president that did nothing would still grow the budget, simply out of inaction.

So I think you meant that Democrats are without question the party of big government, since the only thing they do is block all cuts. They thus do nothing to stop growth and everything to keep continue it.


I have worked at a few LARGE public corporations, and ALL of the people working in these companies were very LIBERAL or LIBERAL EXTREMISTS.

I also have worked a few small companies, private corporations, and these were the only companies that had any conservatives in them, the BIGGER the city was that they were in the MORE liberal they were !!!

So the information I have gotten from experience is that LARGE PUBLIC CORPORATIONS ARE OUTRAGEOUSLY LIBERAL, so I think that is the heart of the Democrat party. From what I hear the conservative big companies are old money in the EAST.

But in the WEST private corporations are the Republicans, this is probably why the Democrat party is now the party of WEALTH.

So REALLY the Democrats are the party of WEALTH and BIG BUSINESS but try to win that argument on street corner USA.