Conservative Radio is Making Me Sick! (1 Viewer)

[proverbialthought]

Hey, I am a Cristian wo has been labeling himself as a Conservative, but they are driving me out of my affiliation with them.

Why are they criticizing GWB for his miles per gallon caps.

This is the type of Hypocracy that gives validity to Lanienus and others. Yes Lanny, I am associating with you for once.

We as Conservatives are 100% supportive of Government inclusion/intrusion on private citizens when it comes to moral issues.

But the horific attacks on GW's gas consumption caps show that we are still in an unholy, blind alliance with the market and do not want the government to regulate the "FREE" market.

Conservatives, please help me understand this double standard.

If we say the government can legislate on moral issues we have to also let them legislate on market issues. Otherwise there is no moral compass and we are doing nothing different than what we criticize liberals for.

CB
www.coreybuckner.com

 

[FinnMacCool]

It's nice to see conservatives actually criticize the president because he's not even a real conservative. People who call themselves conservatives, more often then not, are just people who support Bush. I'm a liberal and I support change, conservatives support things to stay the same. Bush is neither. He doesn't even know what he is. He's like a compassionate "nothing", seriously. Some people have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. People call liberals "terrorists" but our country was founded on liberal values. If we were conservative, we would've stayed loyal to England. Also, without liberalism, we would still have segregation today, as most conservatives have resisted changes to that as well. I actually think conservatives and liberals balance each other out rather nicely.

 

[aquapub]

Anti-Abortionism, to most religious conservatives, for example, is not moral intrusiveness. It is protecting a group of people from being killed. Liberals are the ones intruding...on another's right to exist.

Gay marriage is not to be allowed for the same reason we should not expect the govt. to undefine race so that whites can get scholarships from the United Negro College Fund.

When they push for the right to let prayer occur in schools, they are not only on the Constitution's side, but they are also not intruding. Again, liberals are the ones telling people they can't express themselves freely (except for that part where they have made it a mandatory part of 5th grade graduation in California, for kids to recite the 7 pillars of Islam and wear Muslim garb), conservatives are fighting for EQUALITY and FAIRNESS.

The FCC hype is about more rigorous enforcement of EXISTING laws at the Mainstream public's request.

The point: Conservatives are NOT for government intrusion economically OR morally (despite the irrational screeching from the liberal noise machine.



As for economics..It is just simply proven that socialism stagnates economies. Conservatives will always oppose economic regulation because it is purely destructive.

And there are examples all over the world...

India-the most socialist (hence, regulated) "free" country in Asia. They have the population density of New Jersey and lots of resources, yet their economy remains stagnate. It takes months to get through all the licensing and bureaucratic red tape just to open a hot dog stand. And then, you get taxed and regulated to death for your trouble.

Hong Kong- the most unregulated place on Earth (until recently China took over) It has no resources, yet it is a thriving metropolis.

 

[Navy Pride]

My advice to you is if Conservative Radio make you sick don't listen to it...........

 

[FinnMacCool]

Aqua I read your post over three times but I still don't understand it. Are you just attacking liberals or is there a point to it? Can you please clarify?

 

[KevinWan]

It's nice to see conservatives actually criticize the president because he's not even a real conservative. People who call themselves conservatives, more often then not, are just people who support Bush. I'm a liberal and I support change, conservatives support things to stay the same. Bush is neither. He doesn't even know what he is. He's like a compassionate "nothing", seriously. Some people have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. People call liberals "terrorists" but our country was founded on liberal values. If we were conservative, we would've stayed loyal to England. Also, without liberalism, we would still have segregation today, as most conservatives have resisted changes to that as well. I actually think conservatives and liberals balance each other out rather nicely.

The modern definitions of conservatives and liberals are not the ones you are describing. A conservative is someone who supports economic freedom, and social order. Liberals support economic equality and social freedom. Its not "resisting change" to want to change social security and the tax code, as do conservatives. Liberals don't support changing these things - thats not open to change. Your definitions are correct when applying to the Progressive Era.

And yes, out country was founded on liberal values, I'll give you that one.

 

[Connecticutter]

And yes, out country was founded on liberal values, I'll give you that one.

Back then it was called liberal, but our founders were against big government, and specifically their over-extended power to regulate and tax. This is the conservative message in America today.

 

[cnredd]

Back then it was called liberal, but our founders were against big government, and specifically their over-extended power to regulate and tax. This is the conservative message in America today.

Yup...If they were both alive today, it would be Lincoln the Liberal against Kennedy the Conservative...

 

[Columbusite]

Anti-Abortionism, to most religious conservatives, for example, is not moral intrusiveness. It is protecting a group of people from being killed. Liberals are the ones intruding...on another's right to exist.

Gay marriage is not to be allowed for the same reason we should not expect the govt. to undefine race so that whites can get scholarships from the United Negro College Fund.

When they push for the right to let prayer occur in schools, they are not only on the Constitution's side, but they are also not intruding. Again, liberals are the ones telling people they can't express themselves freely (except for that part where they have made it a mandatory part of 5th grade graduation in California, for kids to recite the 7 pillars of Islam and wear Muslim garb), conservatives are fighting for EQUALITY and FAIRNESS.

The FCC hype is about more rigorous enforcement of EXISTING laws at the Mainstream public's request.

The point: Conservatives are NOT for government intrusion economically OR morally (despite the irrational screeching from the liberal noise machine.



As for economics..It is just simply proven that socialism stagnates economies. Conservatives will always oppose economic regulation because it is purely destructive.

And there are examples all over the world...

India-the most socialist (hence, regulated) "free" country in Asia. They have the population density of New Jersey and lots of resources, yet their economy remains stagnate. It takes months to get through all the licensing and bureaucratic red tape just to open a hot dog stand. And then, you get taxed and regulated to death for your trouble.

Hong Kong- the most unregulated place on Earth (until recently China took over) It has no resources, yet it is a thriving metropolis.

A lot of conservatives like to claim they are rational, while liberals are all emotional and whiny. Yes, there's PETA and such, but lack of critical thought seems to be missing among many more conservatives than liberals in my exeperience.

Abortion? Yes, in certain cases, but not all (serious mental disorders, for example). How about all you conservatives start adopting all those babies who need parents? Lots of them are black though, and not enough white people want to adopt. Yes, let's just have more kids who can't be supported by their parents and who have no one else that wants to take care of them.

Your gay marriage argument is laughable. Our 14th Amendment guarantees equality under the law for all citizens (or at least supposed to). Gay marriage shouldn't even be up for debate. Gee, abiding by our Constitution even though something makes us feel icky. How unpatriotic. Our country was found on the Constitution, not the Bible.

Umm, push for prayer in schools? That's already legal :3oops: (I'm embarassed for you). You can pray all day in school if you want, but no, that isn't good enough. Did you not actually know that or are you just willfully pushing for governmental preference of Christians? I'm already doubting your claim about kids having to wear Muslim garb and recite the "7 pillars" of Islam (Yeah...there's 5 pillars, not 7. Just thought I'd let you know.). It sounds to me unconstitutional and no different than making kids recite the 10 commandments.

Not sure what you're referring to specifically about the FCC, but who gave the FCC that kind of authority anyway? It doesn't look constitutional to me. Let's remember kids, mainstream ≠ constitutional.

I'm a liberal and I'm not for socialism and if you think the democrats are socialists, you obviously haven't been to Europe.

So basically it would seem that by standing up for the Constitution I am unamerican (and yes, that includes the 2nd). Sounds right to me.

 

[FinnMacCool]

Kevin, if what your saying is true then what am I? I thought those traits described Democrats and Republicans not Liberals and Conservatives. Am I mixing up my political terminology?

 

[Navy Pride]

I think when people are young they usually start out as Liberals but when they grow, get married, and have families then most become moderates or conservatives............

 

[KevinWan]

Kevin, if what your saying is true then what am I? I thought those traits described Democrats and Republicans not Liberals and Conservatives. Am I mixing up my political terminology?

Well although it is true that the Democratic Party coincides with liberal ideology, and Republicans are conservatives... theres more differences between the parties. Democrats support big government/socialist values, and they support more greater the Democracy of our country, rather than the Republics (ie states rights). Republicans support small government/capitlistic values, small government, and support more greater state's rights to choose on many decisions.

Sorry, but I can't determine your political association...

 

[AlbqOwl]

I just got through reading through a loooooooooong Wikipedia definition/explanation of neo-conservatism. As you know, Wikipedia is an interactive on line encyclopedia in which anybody can put in edits, additions, amendments, or whatever, so that long definition probably had hundreds and hundreds of contributors. I doubt neoconservatives or liberals would all agree with any one point of that definition and certainly none of us will likely agree with every point, but overall it is a fair representation of neoconservatism in the most general terms.

As a conservative, I want the people to be able to enforce basic standards of decency and morals and create a people/family-friendly environment in their communities. That often requires laws and to have laws, you have to have government involvement. I want that involvement to be representative government reflecting the will of the people it represents. But all are unlikely to agree 100% on anything.

Do you really want the government dictating what kind of car you must drive? Does it make any sense to establish a minimum fuel efficiency without establishing a maximum usage? I personally see such as legitimate actions of government if the fuel supply is in jeopardy. Otherwise the people should dictate supply and demand and the high price of gasoline is a pretty good deterent to wanton wastefulness and an incentive to look for transportation that gives you the best gas mileage. The market responds to demand.

Don't blame talk radio for spelling out the options. Even those talk show hosts don't agree on everything. You can go to a Rush Limbaugh who is pretty much a cheerleader for everything the GOP is doing to a Michael Savage who pretty much doesn't like anything the GOP is doing these days. Both are quite conservative and they don't agree any more than all of us do.

 

[cnredd]

I just got through reading through a loooooooooong Wikipedia definition/explanation of neo-conservatism. As you know, Wikipedia is an interactive on line encyclopedia in which anybody can put in edits, additions, amendments, or whatever, so that long definition probably had hundreds and hundreds of contributors. I doubt neoconservatives or liberals would all agree with any one point of that definition and certainly none of us will likely agree with every point, but overall it is a fair representation of neoconservatism in the most general terms.

As a conservative, I want the people to be able to enforce basic standards of decency and morals and create a people/family-friendly environment in their communities. That often requires laws and to have laws, you have to have government involvement. I want that involvement to be representative government reflecting the will of the people it represents. But all are unlikely to agree 100% on anything.

Do you really want the government dictating what kind of car you must drive? Does it make any sense to establish a minimum fuel efficiency without establishing a maximum usage? I personally see such as legitimate actions of government if the fuel supply is in jeopardy. Otherwise the people should dictate supply and demand and the high price of gasoline is a pretty good deterent to wanton wastefulness and an incentive to look for transportation that gives you the best gas mileage. The market responds to demand.

Don't blame talk radio for spelling out the options. Even those talk show hosts don't agree on everything. You can go to a Rush Limbaugh who is pretty much a cheerleader for everything the GOP is doing to a Michael Savage who pretty much doesn't like anything the GOP is doing these days. Both are quite conservative and they don't agree any more than all of us do.

Agreed...The terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" does not require that the person claiming what they are has to adhere to strict rules held within their affiliation...

There is no pamphlet or manual that has X amount of beliefs, and you MUST agree with them all.

I, personally, have a couple issues that are in direct contention with what the generally accepted term "Conservative" means to the public. If I ONLY mentioned them in this forum, I would be considered a "Liberal" based JUST on those arguments.

So hearing a Conservative on a talk radio show saying something is wrong in the "Conserative world" sounds alot more credible than hearing it from Al Franken.

Bill Frist just went against "Conservative" thinking when it came to stem cell reasearch and some people started calling him a "traitor". Whether or not you agree with his position, saying things like "turning his back on the Party" is just incredibly narrowminded...

 

[Youve Got To Be Kidding!]

Conservatives drove me out of church. Keep letting it bother you and that may be what happens. I am sure churches have lost lots of attendance over conservative views. To bad they are loosing a good part of their church. I left cause of all this hate stuff being spread.

I liked my church cause they preached the grace of god. When they started in on all that liberals and gay this and homosexual that I think they got a little off topic.

I could not see going to church with a bunch of people who are spreading hatred lack of love and pointing of the finger to stick around.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Conservatives drove me out of church. Keep letting it bother you and that may be what happens. I am sure churches have lost lots of attendance over conservative views. To bad they are loosing a good part of their church. I left cause of all this hate stuff being spread.

I liked my church cause they preached the grace of god. When they started in on all that liberals and gay this and homosexual that I think they got a little off topic.

I could not see going to church with a bunch of people who are spreading hatred lack of love and pointing of the finger to stick around.

Don't give up on church just because one congregation or one obscure denomination hasn't learned the concept of agape love. There are plenty out there that have. Look for one.

 

[Youve Got To Be Kidding!]

Name one. I have a hard time finding em. I live in a Red State.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I sent you a list via PM :smile:

 

[aquapub]

This topic really doesn’t belong in the “media bias” forum. Conservative talk radio is openly OPINION JOURNALISM. Nobody in it is claiming to be neutral. This is in total contrast to what we somehow keep a straight face while calling, “objective journalism,” which is usually another term for, “formerly employed by a Democrat in office.”

 

[kal-el]

I think when people are young they usually start out as Liberals but when they grow, get married, and have families then most become moderates or conservatives............

I have to agree with you there Navy, as people age they become hostlie to new ideas, and prefer to stay encrusted in their old traditions.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I have to agree with you there Navy, as people age they become hostlie to new ideas, and prefer to stay encrusted in their old traditions.

That's just the liberal ones.

Seriously it is the neoconservative who is pushing for constructive reforms and better ways of doing things. And it is those who call themselves liberals or progressives who have their heels dug in and are saying no, no, no to just about every proposal. All the labels have been turned on their heads.

People tend to become more 'conservative' as they get older, however, because they've lived the best and worst of times and know what traditional values are worth fighting for. In other words, they've developed the maturity to know to not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Those in control of the MSM (mainstream media) these days, however, are products of the rebellious, anti-establishment 1960's and are stuck mostly in a timewarp of that era. They are registered 70-80% Democrat and tilt left of center by an even greater margin. It colors the media and creates the bias, however unintentional it may be and however unrecognizable that is to those liberals who are comfortable with the way those talking heads phrase things and report things.

 

[kal-el]

That's just the liberal ones.

Seriously it is the neoconservative who is pushing for constructive reforms and better ways of doing things. And it is those who call themselves liberals or progressives who have their heels dug in and are saying no, no, no to just about every proposal. All the labels have been turned on their heads.

People tend to become more 'conservative' as they get older, however, because they've lived the best and worst of times and know what traditional values are worth fighting for. In other words, they've developed the maturity to know to not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Those in control of the MSM (mainstream media) these days, however, are products of the rebellious, anti-establishment 1960's and are stuck mostly in a timewarp of that era. They are registered 70-80% Democrat and tilt left of center by an even greater margin. It colors the media and creates the bias, however unintentional it may be and however unrecognizable that is to those liberals who are comfortable with the way those talking heads phrase things and report things.

Some people forget to live because they are sacred of others judging them. As people get older, they realize at one time they had dreams. They wished to change the world, become rich, or fall madly in love. But a majority never dared live their dreams out. And as they age, they cut their hair shorter and shorter, their sexaulity slows down, and their minds settle into old age. This IMO is the conservative mindset. Then of course, they become intolerant of new ideas, and hostile to others who can enjoy their lives while they are young. Once in a while, they look at themselves in the mirror, and wonder what happened to their dreams. They say, "What have I become?" "I was revolutionary once, with my long hair, and flowery shirt?" And their mirror answers, "You've grown old, time to fall in line, and become normal.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Some people forget to live because they are sacred of others judging them. As people get older, they realize at one time they had dreams. They wished to change the world, become rich, or fall madly in love. But a majority never dared live their dreams out. And as they age, they cut their hair shorter and shorter, their sexaulity slows down, and their minds settle into old age. This IMO is the conservative mindset. Then of course, they become intolerant of new ideas, and hostile to others who can enjoy their lives while they are young. Once in a while, they look at themselves in the mirror, and wonder what happened to their dreams. They say, "What have I become?" "I was revolutionary once, with my long hair, and flowery shirt?" And their mirror answers, "You've grown old, time to fall in line, and become normal.

Hey, you're talking to somebody who's older than dirt and it just ain't so, friend. :smile:

 

[kal-el]

Hey, you're talking to somebody who's older than dirt and it just ain't so, friend. :smile:

Ok, fine, but while we are on the subject of growing older, conservatives as they age, become worried about becoming too old. Sure, they were young for a couple of months or weeks when they wanted to change the world, and then they fell in line and grew old.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Ok, fine, but while we are on the subject of growing older, conservatives as they age, become worried about becoming too old. Sure, they were young for a couple of months or weeks when they wanted to change the world, and then they fell in line and grew old.

I think what you call 'falling in line' is in fact 'shared values'. These are very different things.