Want to be a conservative?

Live by the following mantras:

"My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for yourselves. You think you're entitled to something? You're entitled to freedom and opportunity. The rest is up to you.

"Don't come crying to me if you're not motivated enough, or won't make the necessary sacrifices and investment to be successful and engage in risky personal behavior. That's your problem, not the government's.

"We should make it as easy as possible for you to succeed. In addition to freedom and opportunity, you should be allowed to keep most of the money you make and determine how you want to save or spend it. You should be telling government how much of your money you intend government to have. Government should not be telling you how much of your money it will allow you to keep.

"Health care? Take care of yourself. Exercise. Eat right. Don't smoke. Look both ways before crossing the street. The truly poor we can help, but there should be less incentive for being poor and getting a government check than there is in becoming wealthy and earning your own check.

"All this bunk about helping 'working people.' Your grandparents looked after themselves and each other. Day care meant your mother was there when you arrived home from school. Stop divorcing. Stay married. Work it out. Don't abuse drugs and alcohol. Practice recreational basketball, not recreational sex. Obey the law.

"Don't watch garbage TV and garbage movies. Read to your kids. Talk to your spouse. Live within your means. Plan for your own future so others won't be burdened taking care of you. Get a life!"

Want to be a conservative?

Not remotely.

Though I agree with some of your mantras, others are unrealistic worldviews (sound familiar?) full of casual platitudes that barely work in a fully black and white world. Fortunately the majority of the industrialized world, including most of the US, isn''t so unsympathetic and self-involved.

others are unrealistic worldviews (sound familiar?) full of casual platitudes that barely work in a fully black and white world.

Right. God forbid that we place personal responsibility high on the list of admirable qualities. I am interested in which of these you find unrealistic, given that all of them have been historically achieved at one time or another.

Or, to put it another way: being able to do something but not wanting to because it is hard does not make it ''unrealistic''. Saying we can get rid of crime, or create a social utopia if only the rich were taxed more, is unrealistic. See the difference?

Though I agree with some of your mantras, others are unrealistic worldviews (sound familiar?) full of casual platitudes that barely work in a fully black and white world.

Actually they work just fine for the vast majority of humanity. Liberalism assumes that the exception has to be dealt with as if it were the rule, and ignores the basic reality that what works for one can work for another.

On every issue, from poverty, to drug abuse, to crime the liberals tell us that a large portion of the population lives ""without hope"". But for every person who succumbs to drugs, gets involved in crime, drops out of school, or fails to escape poverty there is another person in exactly the same situation who does none of those things. And every success shows that the inevitability of failure is a lie, and that hopelessness is just another choice...

Right. God forbid that we place personal responsibility high on the list of admirable qualities.

Tolerance is the only accepted liberal virtue. The government takes care of the rest.

Some questions while I read your post arose:

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

""My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for yourselves. You think you''re entitled to something? You''re entitled to freedom and opportunity. The rest is up to you.

Except that opportunity for everyone would only exist in an ideal world were everyone has the same chances. In reality your opportunity are often determined by your heritage and your parent''s wealth and contacts. How do you propose we change that?

""Don''t come crying to me if you''re not motivated enough, or won''t make the necessary sacrifices and investment to be successful and engage in risky personal behavior. That''s your problem, not the government''s.

No problem with that. However there are persons that are in unpleasant circumstances due to events that were beyond their control. Do you think the government/society should not care for these people, because ultimately its their own fault?

""We should make it as easy as possible for you to succeed. In addition to freedom and opportunity, you should be allowed to keep most of the money you make and determine how you want to save or spend it. You should be telling government how much of your money you intend government to have. Government should not be telling you how much of your money it will allow you to keep.

Again you often do not have any influence on people''s success. Additionally this is based on the assumption that all people are reasonable. This is not the case, especially younger people have a certain trend to not care about what may come when they are old :). I also think this is a double standard. While you for example declare that you know what is best for the people in the middle east, you at the same time declare people are responsible enough to take care for themselves. What is it now? And if you say you can''t generalize that much, what makes you think you can generalize that much about the American public?

""Health care? Take care of yourself. Exercise. Eat right. Don''t smoke. Look both ways before crossing the street. The truly poor we can help, but there should be less incentive for being poor and getting a government check than there is in becoming wealthy and earning your own check.

Again that sounds so easy on paper, but there are events that are beyond your control. Not everyone earns enough to save money for both retirement and health care. Paired with the really high costs of medical treatments, that would mean that people would die because they cannot pay for a treatment or are in high debt, because of a disease that struck them without warning.
Just take a look at people who take the risk of becoming self employed. Not only do they have to pay higher insurances, because of the risk, but also the moment they get sick/have an accident they very likely are in a situation where this event drives their company bankrupt. Don''t you think there should be help for these people?

""All this bunk about helping ''working people.'' Your grandparents looked after themselves and each other. Day care meant your mother was there when you arrived home from school. Stop divorcing. Stay married. Work it out. Don''t abuse drugs and alcohol. Practice recreational basketball, not recreational sex. Obey the law.

Did you ever consider that there is the need for day care because both parents have no choice but going to work to keep their living standard? Nobody goes to work because it is so much fun. Also I think you are mistaken when you think that the biggest amount of divorces comes from couples that ""just couldn''t work it out"".
And when you reach a point where you say to an alcoholic straight to the face ""well its your own fault that you abused alcohol. Help yourself, you are a grown up man"", you have already thrown your morals overboard.

""Don''t watch garbage TV and garbage movies. Read to your kids. Talk to your spouse. Live within your means. Plan for your own future so others won''t be burdened taking care of you. Get a life!""

All that is easier said than done, when you have 2-3 jobs to just earn for your living.
I have the feeling these mantras are the easy way out of not having to worry about others at all. I also think that these were not values your grandparents would have agreed to, especially the ""every man for himself"" idea. A society is defined by people that have the will to stick together and to a certain extent care for another. Our ancestors wouldn''t have survived long if every one would just have looked after themselves.

See? It''s just too hard. People are just too weak, and nothing they do is ever their fault. Let''s just give ''em a big hug.

"chrisg" wrote:

Some questions while I read your post arose:

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

""My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for yourselves. You think you''re entitled to something? You''re entitled to freedom and opportunity. The rest is up to you.

Except that opportunity for everyone would only exist in an ideal world were everyone has the same chances. In reality your opportunity are often determined by your heritage and your parent''s wealth and contacts. How do you propose we change that?

Please cite your source for ""often"".

Otherwise, I''m entitled to counter your anecdotal evidence with mine: I spent most of my childhood in a single-parent household. My mom earned secretary''s wages. We ate a lot of macaroni and cheese. She inherited nothing from her parents. I went to public school, worked my way through college. Today I''m 33, have a very secure job and two cars -- my newest just over a year old. I have two children and make enough money that my wife can stay home with them.

In the Democratic worldview, I''ve gone from being a member of the repressed and overtaxed poor to one of those rich devils who isn''t paying their fair share. Oddly enough however, I didn''t make the transition by inheriting money or using family contacts or winning the lottery. I sure as hell didn''t achieve what I did due to a government program.

If I''m such an aberration, how come I work with so many people with the same kind of story?

However there are persons that are in unpleasant circumstances due to events that were beyond their control. Do you think the government/society should not care for these people, because ultimately its their own fault?

Let''s differentiate between ""care for"" and ""assist"". The latter implies a temporary situation, the former does not.

I''m all for assisting people who have lost their jobs and/or can''t pay for basic heath care. What I am against is creating an entitlement that an entire generation of people can utilize until it becomes a de facto ""right"".

Again you often do not have any influence on people''s success.

I challenge you to find a case where a government -- rather than a person''s self-motivation -- was the primary cause of their success.

Did you ever consider that there is the need for day care because both parents have no choice but going to work to keep their living standard?

When my wife & I lived in the D.C. area, we both had to work to pay the mortgage. We wanted kids. So we took steps to move to a more affordable area, which we did. If we couldn''t have done that, yet still wanted kids, we would have made other sacrifices: far less eating out, far fewer movies, no new computer games, perhaps a longer commute from a house with a far cheaper mortgage.

The standard of living of people defined as ""poor"" in the United States is laughable compared to the poverty much of the rest of the world lives in. A subsistencefarmer in Nigeria would give his left arm to have some of the ""needs"" we enjoy.

(Edit: damn typos)

Rantage, I was all set to answer, and then you did it for me...almost exactly as I would have. As the fellow from the Bud Light commercial says, ""I love you man.""

I still feel compelled to weigh in somewhat though.

In reality your opportunity are often determined by your heritage and your parent''s wealth and contacts. How do you propose we change that?

I don''t. Nothing was said about equal opportunity. Only opportunity. Some people will always have an easier time in life. I have a friend that is smart, charming, warm, and very handsome. He has never really had to struggle for anything in life. Should we knock his teeth out and give him a lobotomy so others that are not as blessed have an ''equal chance''? If you have circumstances stacked against you, you have to work harder to get there, plain and simple.

However there are persons that are in unpleasant circumstances due to events that were beyond their control. Do you think the government/society should not care for these people, because ultimately its their own fault?

Pick them up and help them to their feet. That is the mark of compassion. Allow them to escape personal responsibility and it is disasterous. And there will always be some tiny percentage that you can''t help, or that won''t stand on their own. Those people should have to depend on their families, not society.

This is not the case, especially younger people have a certain trend to not care about what may come when they are old

Well, then they had best come to their senses before if becomes too late. Or have lots of children and go live with them.

While you for example declare that you know what is best for the people in the middle east, you at the same time declare people are responsible enough to take care for themselves. What is it now?

I''m not sure where you are going with this. Are you saying that it is hypocritical to think people should have a level of personal responsibility and that government''s only responsibility is to provide opportunity, but then remove from power a dictator that takes away both? How is thinking that people should be free to make their way in life with minimal impediments from government contrary to the concept that reform is needed in the Arab world?

Not everyone earns enough to save money for both retirement and health care. Paired with the really high costs of medical treatments, that would mean that people would die because they cannot pay for a treatment or are in high debt, because of a disease that struck them without warning.

But strangely enough, those people have enough money to own cars, get cable television on two or more televisions, own appliances, keep thier house cool, own three bedrooms+ homes, etc. This is about choices. If you decide that you want to spend everything you make and not buy insurance or plan for the future, that is your fault. Why should the people that do make sacrifices to be responsible have to make additional sacrifices so that the guy that drives a Mercedes and lives in an apartment doesn''t have to worry? For the very small percentage of genuine poor, there should be a safety net of last resort. But if you own a TV and more than one car, don''t come crying because you didn''t save enough for retirement.

Did you ever consider that there is the need for day care because both parents have no choice but going to work to keep their living standard?

Then change your living standard.

Also I think you are mistaken when you think that the biggest amount of divorces comes from couples that ""just couldn''t work it out"".

And I think the largest number of divorces come from people that have instant gratification mindsets and too much free time.

I also think that these were not values your grandparents would have agreed to, especially the ""every man for himself"" idea.

I absolutely think my grandparents would have agreed with all of these. No one is saying that it is ''every man for himself''. But, amazingly enough, I have found that if you live your life with a sense of personal responsibility, the people around you respect you more and respond quickly when you are in need. Not ''society'', but personal relationships carry the load. Whether it be friends or family.

If the Democrats had a spine when it came to intl affairs like JFK, kicked out the socialist left and went back to JFK''s programmes, I''d vote Democratic. Too bad they are a party of nothing but socialist and Liberman gets 9% of the vote.

Don''t abuse drugs and alcohol. Practice recreational basketball, not recreational sex. Obey the law.

Conservatives have a lock on this? No conservative has ever abused drugs or alcohol? No conservative has ever had a healthy sex life let alone be promiscuous? No conservative has ever broken the law?

Wow I didnt know they were such an exclusive club. If I had registered republican, I would have been turned down since I fail all three.

Ive drank too much, sampled marijuana (stupidest drug ever) or at least been in the same room as others who were smoking a lot of it several times. My sex life is none of your business and Ive stolen something from a convenience store twice when I was much younger. Oh and I have a lot of speeding tickets and stop sign rolling stops.

I am so awful. Jesus save me!

I am so awful. Jesus save me!

Not going to happen, Fang. He''s still mad that your people (meaning you, of course) killed him.

Practice recreational basketball, not recreational sex.

Why on earth not? What do you have against f*cking, sir?

Not going to happen, Fang. He''s still mad that your people (meaning you, of course) killed him.

Aw, nuts! I was sure I could finagle something to cover the alcohol abuse seeing as wine is used in ceremonies. People refer to marijuana as an herb. Herbs and greens have been known to be healthy eating. I thought for at least a moment I was going to marry those girls...

"Ulairi" wrote:

If the Democrats had a spine when it came to intl affairs like JFK, kicked out the socialist left and went back to JFK''s programmes, I''d vote Democratic. Too bad they are a party of nothing but socialist and Liberman gets 9% of the vote.

Ouch. I hope you don''t view real people like you do demographic groups of them.

Ive drank too much, sampled marijuana (stupidest drug ever) or at least been in the same room as others who were smoking a lot of it several times. My sex life is none of your business and Ive stolen something from a convenience store twice when I was much younger. Oh and I have a lot of speeding tickets and stop sign rolling stops.

You are artfully ignoring the key words in the sentence, which are ''abuse'' and ''recreational''. It pretty much boils down to ''All things in moderation''.

Practice recreational basketball, not recreational sex.

I''d have to quit the rec sex team? The gang at the Y will be dissapointed to see me go - I had just told them how to get more staying power AND enlarge themselves! It was in an email, it must be true!

"Alien Love Gardener" wrote:
Practice recreational basketball, not recreational sex.

Why on earth not? What do you have against f*cking, sir?

If you think that sex is only about f*cking, then you''ve just proved JMJ''s point about lack of personal responsibility.

You are artfully ignoring the key words in the sentence, which are ''abuse'' and ''recreational''. It pretty much boils down to ''All things in moderation''.

No I was politely choosing words without admitting too much guilt. I definitely abused alcohol from probably 17-19 and then again when I turned 21. Unless beer bonging vodka and crystal light or getting blitzed on monday night football, tuesday $1 well drinks, wednesday 25 cent beer, fri-sat clubin (couldnt find anything to do on thurs and sun during college) doesnt count as abuse.

That''s college. If you didn''t do that in college years, you were... probably a CS major ;).

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

It pretty much boils down to ''All things in moderation''.

Wouldn''t that make you a moderate, not a conservative?

"BrokenCrayon" wrote:
"Alien Love Gardener" wrote:
Practice recreational basketball, not recreational sex.

Why on earth not? What do you have against f*cking, sir?

If you think that sex is only about f*cking, then you''ve just proved JMJ''s point about lack of personal responsibility.

I didn''t say I do, and I don''t, but recreational sex is most definitely only about f*cking, yes? I also fail to see how two poeple having sex just for the sheer enjoyment of it, without any deeper emotional attachments, would be irresponsible or wrong in any way, or anything but their business.

That''s college. If you didn''t do that in college years, you were... probably a CS major.

Haha, around here the conclusion would probably be the exact opposite. Any subject relating to technology, and you have a lot of trouble finding people who stay sober for any greater period of time.

First off, I am new to this board but not to the site. I am posting because you all seem well educated and open to meaningful discussion (something quite rare indeed, especially on internet bb''s). So here are my two cents:

Nothing was said about equal opportunity. Only opportunity. Some people will always have an easier time in life. I have a friend that is smart, charming, warm, and very handsome. He has never really had to struggle for anything in life. Should we knock his teeth out and give him a lobotomy so others that are not as blessed have an ''equal chance''? If you have circumstances stacked against you, you have to work harder to get there, plain and simple.

I think it is obvious that equal opportunity is impossible. No mature and rational person could defend an argument that we must have equal opportunity for all people. However, I think that a goal of any liberal society (which is what ours is, most ""liberals"" don''t even know what liberalism is, but that is another matter entirely) is to create a realistic opportunity for everyone to be able to make meaningful life choices and to succeed. If we lived in such a state, then I think your mantras would be right at home. Unfortunately we don''t. I am sure that Rantage''s childhood was not easy and the kids he went to school had things easier that he. However, those secretary''s wages probably put his family in atleast the lower-middle class. More importantly, his mother, no doubt, worked her tail off to provide as much as she could and was, most importantly, also a great role model. Now lets look at a child who grows up in the inner city with a single parent who is a crack dealer/addict. The only role models (i am defining role models as adults in the individuals community that provide examples of possible life paths/choices that are available) for this child are gang bangers and drug addicts. The only people that they see who have made it out of the ghetto are athletes and rappers. Does this child have a realistic opportunity for success under these circumstances? Alternatively, do I have a realistic opportunity of becoming the next Michael Jordan? Of course not. I have an opportunity to be the next Michael Jordan, but we all know that I wont. Therefore, we cannot just stand by and tell people to get off their asses. The problem runs much deeper than that.

That is my bit. Take care everybody

ALG wrote

I also fail to see how two poeple having sex just for the sheer enjoyment of it, without any deeper emotional attachments, would be irresponsible or wrong in any way, or anything but their business.

Really? You fail to see any scenario in which this might be wrong? What if one or both had a trusting spouse at home? What if one of them had a sexually transmitted disease, and the other didn''t know? You may not have had such extreme scenarios in mind, but I found your statement to be a little too all-encompassing.

I''m not at all convinced that anyone is that dispassionate about sex. If both participants each had different partners the next night, and both found out, would neither feel the least bit odd about it?

I find it kind of funny how many of these statements people have taken issue with. I didn''t see anything in there about laws. People still have the legal freedom to do whatever childish, self-destructive thing in these statements that they wish, without reprisal. Yet, looking on certain acts and behavior as personally irresponsible is somehow reprehensible to them. That is why I can''t convince myself to vote Libertarian despite my advocacy of small government. It won''t just be laws that will repealed. Inconvenient moral codes will be discouraged and probably even forbidden as well.

Duttybrew wrote:

If we lived in such a state, then I think your mantras would be right at home. Unfortunately we don''t.

Before you so quickly dismiss JohnnyMoJo''s mantras as fantasy, perhaps you should look into the life story of the man in his signature line.

"Gorack" wrote:

ALG wrote

I also fail to see how two poeple having sex just for the sheer enjoyment of it, without any deeper emotional attachments, would be irresponsible or wrong in any way, or anything but their business.

Really? You fail to see any scenario in which this might be wrong? What if one or both had a trusting spouse at home? What if one of them had a sexually transmitted disease, and the other didn''t know? You may not have had such extreme scenarios in mind, but I found your statement to be a little too all-encompassing.

Of course I can, and those two would be among them (although if you go around having casual sex without a condom, you''re a bit of an idiot). It might''ve been a bit poorly worded, but I stand by the sentiment. The assertion that sex for fun is automatically wrong and irresponsible is bollocks.

If we lived in such a state, then I think your mantras would be right at home. Unfortunately we don''t.

Welcome to the discussion Duttybrew. I have to disagree. People from the inner city do have opportunity to succeed. The law isn''t stacked against them, in fact it favors them. I agree that the odds might be stacked against them, but they have access to a free education - which is the great equalizer. Of course, going to class and studying hard is much more difficult than selling crack, so people make bad choices. The problem lies in the fact that we have spent the last 40 years devaluing the family, especially the black family, which is tragic. So, while the road might be steeper, it still exists.

We need to start the hard path of weaning off of government support. Why walk when you can get someone to carry you?

"One_of_47" wrote:
"Ulairi" wrote:

If the Democrats had a spine when it came to intl affairs like JFK, kicked out the socialist left and went back to JFK''s programmes, I''d vote Democratic. Too bad they are a party of nothing but socialist and Liberman gets 9% of the vote.

Ouch. I hope you don''t view real people like you do demographic groups of them.

I''m talking about the party as a whole, not everyone in the party. The Democratic Party is now very far to the left from what it was. Bush is closer to JFK than any of the Democrats running for office, I think that is sad.

"ALG" wrote:

I also fail to see how two poeple having sex just for the sheer enjoyment of it, without any deeper emotional attachments, would be irresponsible or wrong in any way, or anything but their business.

"Gorack" wrote:

You may not have had such extreme scenarios in mind, but I found your statement to be a little too all-encompassing.

And the original statement wasn''t too all-encompassing?

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

Practice recreational basketball, not recreational sex.

Curious logic.

Practice recreational basketball, not recreational sex.

If you get the same feeling from recreational basketball as you do sex, remind me to never play one on one with you.

"Ulairi" wrote:

If you get the same feeling from recreational basketball as you do sex, remind me to never play one on one with you. ;)

""Mini Me, stop humping the laser.""