I agree with some conservative positions like Americans have an individual right of freedom. I can and should be able to live my life in manner that I want to without the government forcing me to live it another way. I view things like LGBTQ rights fall under this surprising core conservative belief. Now most conservatives would view it as individual freedom mean they can be a racist bigot and discriminate, but that isn’t individual freedom.
I also agree with the concept of limited government, but from the view that government even in its best state is a necessary evil. It should not govern our everyday lives but it must serve the people. Government isn’t a power, it is a service that ultimately serves the people.
some conservative positions like Americans have an individual right of freedom.
That’s not a conservative position. Proof: Conservatives don’t want women to have the freedom to end their pregnancies (or just get basic prenatal care in general apparently). They also don’t want universities to have the freedom to choose who they admit based on race (trying to undo historical racism or to prevent a single race from taking over).
In Florida the conservative government removed the freedom of local government to decide how they handle a great many things from elections (can’t have them using ranked choice voting) to what they teach in schools (e.g. teaching about historical racism).
In other states with conservative governments they are banning books, limiting citizens right to sue for damages, making it harder for minorities to vote, and generally reducing the people’s power to change how their government is run. They’re very anti-democracy lately (it was talked about in the article).
What individual freedoms are liberals trying to take away? The historical record here is vastly in liberals favor.
This is silly analysis. They’re religious nuts and that supercedes their views on human rights. People refuse to use a consistent or sane definition of conservative. If you’re just gonna say “proof: thing that violates the very premise of their presumed identity” then fucking give up. You’re not criticizing any coherent model of thought, you’re engaged in shit slinging.
The government is a tool to ensure the good will, safety, and prosperity of the people. What we can’t achieve on our own gets done through the collective power of the government.
Liberals aren’t trying to force government on people, they’re trying to ensure that the rights of everyone take precedent over someone’s perceived “right” to discriminate.
Business aren’t moral entities and it should never be assumed that they will act as such. In fact, the basis by which one should assume a business will operate is on profits and profits alone.
Therefore, if you want to make business behave in any sort of moral fashion their behavior must be regulated and businesses with a history of societal harm must be highly regulated.
Based on these truths one must view with a highly skeptical eye anyone who wishes to broadly remove regulations without specificities as to which ones they want to remove and why the regulation is unnecessary. The belief that regulations are bad–generally speaking–is an inherently unethical and immoral position.
On the surface personal responsibility and free market, howeverz there is no thing really conservative about it it gets twisted into some perverted way to punk minorities and to obtain preferential government treatment.
For example koch brothers and few other select clowns fundd Prager U… To shill these ideas…
Kuck brothers are some of the largest well fare queens in the US…
They don’t oay much taxes either due to their lobbying.
Heavy immigration hurts wage slaves… Where they are born is not relavent. Cute phrasing on this one BTW… Shows your bias nicely.
Nobody is killing babies. Again phrasing showing bias. Also, if this your ideological position. Get a life.
America first is not a a political idealogy, it is a brain dead position that practically means nothing aka “anything I like is america first!” “Anything you like is communism”
2nd amendment protect rights to own guns, nothing ideological about that. Red herring to get cOseRvatives riled up.
With that said, equal treatment under the law and socially, does indeed stand on its own but it ain’t left right thing IMHO. We can all agree that’s just the right thing to make our society function. Which it currently does not for various reasons.
I’m of the belief police should be disarmed and laws put in place that gun violence of any kind is a minimum 50 year sentence. Select police can be armed, but not everyday peace officers.
I’m of the belief that the act itself should be what’s considered. If you murder someone, it should be because you murdered someone, not because of what you used to murder someone with, whether that be a car, knife, or gun.
So what’s one good conservative position?
I agree with some conservative positions like Americans have an individual right of freedom. I can and should be able to live my life in manner that I want to without the government forcing me to live it another way. I view things like LGBTQ rights fall under this surprising core conservative belief. Now most conservatives would view it as individual freedom mean they can be a racist bigot and discriminate, but that isn’t individual freedom.
I also agree with the concept of limited government, but from the view that government even in its best state is a necessary evil. It should not govern our everyday lives but it must serve the people. Government isn’t a power, it is a service that ultimately serves the people.
That’s not a conservative position. Proof: Conservatives don’t want women to have the freedom to end their pregnancies (or just get basic prenatal care in general apparently). They also don’t want universities to have the freedom to choose who they admit based on race (trying to undo historical racism or to prevent a single race from taking over).
In Florida the conservative government removed the freedom of local government to decide how they handle a great many things from elections (can’t have them using ranked choice voting) to what they teach in schools (e.g. teaching about historical racism).
In other states with conservative governments they are banning books, limiting citizens right to sue for damages, making it harder for minorities to vote, and generally reducing the people’s power to change how their government is run. They’re very anti-democracy lately (it was talked about in the article).
What individual freedoms are liberals trying to take away? The historical record here is vastly in liberals favor.
This is silly analysis. They’re religious nuts and that supercedes their views on human rights. People refuse to use a consistent or sane definition of conservative. If you’re just gonna say “proof: thing that violates the very premise of their presumed identity” then fucking give up. You’re not criticizing any coherent model of thought, you’re engaged in shit slinging.
Bro, that’s exactly what liberals want.
The government is a tool to ensure the good will, safety, and prosperity of the people. What we can’t achieve on our own gets done through the collective power of the government.
Liberals aren’t trying to force government on people, they’re trying to ensure that the rights of everyone take precedent over someone’s perceived “right” to discriminate.
Do you consider a business employing people to mutually ageed standards moral?
Business aren’t moral entities and it should never be assumed that they will act as such. In fact, the basis by which one should assume a business will operate is on profits and profits alone.
Therefore, if you want to make business behave in any sort of moral fashion their behavior must be regulated and businesses with a history of societal harm must be highly regulated.
Based on these truths one must view with a highly skeptical eye anyone who wishes to broadly remove regulations without specificities as to which ones they want to remove and why the regulation is unnecessary. The belief that regulations are bad–generally speaking–is an inherently unethical and immoral position.
Yeah. So literally using police to force shit is just bros being bros. Hiring someone to paint your fence, oppression. Got it.
deleted by creator
Just being reductionist doesn’t make it bad faith. I do appreciate your response and I’m sorry I just wasn’t into digging into weeds of justification.
It doesn’t really do any good to go back and forth and call our views when we have wild deviations at a very basic level.
deleted by creator
On the surface personal responsibility and free market, howeverz there is no thing really conservative about it it gets twisted into some perverted way to punk minorities and to obtain preferential government treatment.
For example koch brothers and few other select clowns fundd Prager U… To shill these ideas…
Kuck brothers are some of the largest well fare queens in the US…
They don’t oay much taxes either due to their lobbying.
So I guess none…
America first?
The people should be armed? (And not just cops?)
People should be treated equally?
We shouldn’t murder babies?
Heavy immigration only hurts those born here?
Heavy immigration hurts wage slaves… Where they are born is not relavent. Cute phrasing on this one BTW… Shows your bias nicely.
Nobody is killing babies. Again phrasing showing bias. Also, if this your ideological position. Get a life.
America first is not a a political idealogy, it is a brain dead position that practically means nothing aka “anything I like is america first!” “Anything you like is communism”
2nd amendment protect rights to own guns, nothing ideological about that. Red herring to get cOseRvatives riled up.
With that said, equal treatment under the law and socially, does indeed stand on its own but it ain’t left right thing IMHO. We can all agree that’s just the right thing to make our society function. Which it currently does not for various reasons.
I’m of the belief police should be disarmed and laws put in place that gun violence of any kind is a minimum 50 year sentence. Select police can be armed, but not everyday peace officers.
I’m of the belief that the act itself should be what’s considered. If you murder someone, it should be because you murdered someone, not because of what you used to murder someone with, whether that be a car, knife, or gun.
Good point
I mean 2 for 5 ain’t too bad I guess. I’m out here trying to defend you fucks and you come out with this idiocy.