parkere1 Loc: Texas

I continue to be amazed at how some people like to say “how conservatives” or “how liberals” think. I find myself disgusted at our tendency to “group” people and assume “they all think alike”. I would suggest nothing could be further from the t***h.
First of all, I am a conservative and have v**ed republican for over 35 years. I began adulthood as a Democrat, probably influenced by my parents as much as anything. It is also my opinion that the parties themselves changed over the years and are no longer the same as they were in the 1950s and 1960s.
I have been around long enough and travelled the world enough to realize that we live in a diverse world. Our two party system tends to group people into one of two molds. I would suggest that the average Democrat and average Republican does not agree with everything their party advocates.
What do I think we all share in common? First of all, I believe we all want a Government that works and is a good steward of taxpayer dollars. Most of my conservative friends are not opposed to helping those who need help – where we have issues is when we see the fraud, waste, and abuse in the system. I do believe that conservatives may see more fraud, waste and abuse than some of our liberal friends. A classic example is the “Obama Phone” program that has been going around on youtube. The reality is that this is a program started under the Bush administration and is not directly funded with taxpayer dollars out of the treasury, but by fees imposed by the telecommunication companies on other users. The fact these have become known as Obama Phones is interesting to me but no one seems to be willing to set the record straight. Again, just about every federal program has massive amounts of fraud, waste and abuse. The program itself is probably good for what was intended; however, execution of most federal programs is poor, and not cost effective. Do I think there are people who abuse the system? Absolutely. I also think there are people who need the system to survive. I am not against that; however, I am against the abuse and waste.
Another area where I get upset is when liberals say conservatives want to cut Social Security and Medicare. None of my conservative friends want to do this. We do want to preserve Social Security and Medicare for future generations. I think anyone who looks at the programs realistically realizes they cannot continue structured as they are today. Insofar as Social Security is concerned, most of us believe minor changes today can have significant impact on the future of the program. As an example, people today live longer than they did when the program was started. If you look at the actuary tables and compare them with benefits promised versus dollars paid into the program, today’s recipients will draw more than what they contributed. By changing the full retirement age by one year, we can make the program solvent. Also, but not paying benefits to non-citizens who have never contributed, we can also keep the program solvent for our children and grandchildren.
Medicare is a completely different animal in my opinion. I looked at the amount of dollars I have contributed to Medicare over my working life (and I was in what most would consider above average income), it will no way cover my medical expenses for the rest of my life. I was personally involved in an auto accident (not my fault) and my wife had rotator cuff surgery. The charges for these two events was more than I had contributed over my entire working career (please notice I stated what was charged, not what Medicare allowed or paid). The whole issue with Medicare (and Medicaid) is that we do not collect enough to pay for these programs as currently structured. The whole issue with Obamacare, again, in my opinion, is that it does nothing to reduce costs. The law was written by lobbyist and special interest groups (AMA, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies). It has good provisions (no pre-existing conditions, no dropping coverage when an individual gets ill, keeping children on their parents coverage until age 25, etc.). None of my conservative friends is opposed to Obamacare for that – what we oppose is that the cost is now forecast to be 3 times what POTUS told us, it is a tax (which we were told it was not), and it does nothing to reduce costs. That is why there is a fear there will be “death panels”, etc. The fact that we passed it so we would know what’s in it should be a red f**g to every American, not just conservatives.
A******n is another area where conservatives are accused of wanting to control women’s reproductive rights. Again, nothing could be further from the t***h with me and my conservative friends. Most of us believe that a******n is a very private matter between a woman, her family, her pastor, and her doctor. If a woman, her family, her pastor and her doctor agree to an a******n, who am I to pass judgment when I don’t know the details. These people have to live with the decision. The government has no business being involved in these decisions. Most of us believe a******n is wrong as a method of birth control and take issue with our tax dollars paying for it in these instances.
The last area I’ll comment on has to do with gay rights. Personally, I don’t care what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms. That is between the individuals involved and as long as it is consensual, I could care less. I personally believe the gay lifestyle is destructive and d*****t, but as long as it is not pushed on me or my family, so be it. That is their choice, I just don’t agree with it. Gay marriage is not an issue of religious or civil authority as much as it is entitlement to taxpayer provided benefits. An example is gays in the military. If a gay military member contacts aids, is that now considered a service connected disability and is he/she entitled to disability pay for the rest of their lives? When a gay couple moves to a base, do they get the same consideration for base housing as a heterosexual couple for the limited available housing? There are other issues – these are just a couple. I don’t believe this makes me or my conservative friends “homophobes”. It just means we don’t agree with the lifestyle nor the government supporting it.
What about the 47% (and, by the way, I don’t know if the 47% is right or wrong and could care less) that so many people seem to think Conservatives don’t care about? Again, nothing could be further from the t***h. I do think most of us want everyone to have a stake in the action. Everyone should pay SOME income tax. People will say that 47% still pay payroll taxes, Medicare, and sales tax. Good, but they do not pay a single penny for the running of the Federal Government on a day to day basis. I think everyone (including the 47% ) should pay something and when Congress passes a new spending program, EVERYONE should have to pay something for it.
Finally, there are very few things I totally disagree with. What I do disagree with is the fact that none of my liberal friends can tell me how they are going to pay for the programs. If we had an unlimited amount of money, no sweat. Since we don’t, we are forced to prioritize. I do believe we have to pay as we go and should not pass the bill to our children and grandchildren. Just tell me how you’re going to pay for it.

The Progressive Patriot

Thank you for that very comprehensive response to my original post. It’s refreshing to hear from a rational conservative. We used to have lots- people who wanted the same things for the country as liberals but just had different ideas about how to get there. The title, “The Ultra Conservative Mind” was not intended to slam Republicans or conservatives as a whole…..rather it’s aimed at the Rush Limbaugh , Sarah Palin , Michelle Bachman etc. fan club. I honestly think that I’m on the money with my assessment of how those people think.
Having said that, I want to thank you for your comments on the” Obama Phone”- I really get s**k of that one, as well as your assessment of Social Security….and you didn’t once call it socialism. Just one thing on that, I don’t believe that people who didn’t contribute can collect. Quite the contrary, undocumented workers contribute but can’t collect. I know one personally.

Yes Obama care does not reduce costs because, although the insurers have been somewhat reigned it, they’re still making a tone of money. However, I think that the rising cost has been greatly exaggerated and in the long term, will come down. And you can’t blame POTUS for the fact that it’s called a tax, that was the supreme court. Roberts did that to keep the whole thing from being shot down. And I don’t know about the cost being 3X what we were told. What gets me is that for the most part, when those who are opposed to the law talk about it, they only talk about the costs and never the benefits. You are a refreshing exception. Wh**ever the costs, a healthier nation of people who can contribute to the economy , rather than get sick and be a drain on the system can’t be a bad thing. But death panels?? You disappoint me there .That was established to be the lie of the year when Sarah Palin first said it in 2008 and it’s still a lie. I’ll stop there for now…more later.

parkere1 Loc: Texas

Death panel was probably a poor choice of words. There will be guidelines established where age can dictate treatment. These guidelines could preclude (as an example) a heart pacemaker being installed in a 78 year old person who has a real zeal for life and a spirit much younger than his/her age. The guidelines would not allow it. This, again, is a private matter between a doctor and patient very similar to the a******n issue in my opinion. It is the doctor who should be the final decision maker, not a panel of government bureaucrats. The problem I have with most government programs is they have a "one size fits all" mentality. That is not the case when we are dealing with people. It is very similar to educational guidelines published by the federal Government. What is good for the schools in Pennsylvania may not be what is good for the schools in Texas. Government programs have too many "strings" attached. If there were a way (and I agree it would be difficult) to have general guidelines and then let the States execute the programs based on that particular State's needs, we would (again, in my opinion) have much more success. This is one of the reason that most conservative I know want to limit the role of the Federal Government to very specific roles (and those can be debated) and the rest should be left up to the States. Although we are one nation, the economic conditions, the business environments, even the people within those geographical regions are different and have some different values. Heck, we can't even agree on a common language, so we really believe we can agree on every doctor doing everything the same?

The Progressive Patriot

[quote=parkere1].
A******n is another area where conservatives are accused of wanting to control women’s reproductive rights. Again, nothing could be further from the t***h with me and my conservative friends. Most of us believe that a******n is a very private matter between a woman, her family, her pastor, and her doctor. If a woman, her family, her pastor and her doctor agree to an a******n, who am I to pass judgment when I don’t know the details. These people have to live with the decision. The government has no business being involved in these decisions. Most of us believe a******n is wrong as a method of birth control and take issue with our tax dollars paying for it in these instances.

Thank you again for a rational and balance view point on a******n. I am pro choice but that does not mean that I think that a******n is a good think. I have no idea when life begins, so I won't even deal with that.

I can respect those who are pro life, who want to end or restrict a******n, if they are truly pro life. To many are not. Pro-life is more than being pro fetus but rather encompasses all aspects of pregnancy , child bearing and parenting from meaningful sex education and contraception to prevent pregnancy to health care, child care , food stamps and everything needed to support , encourage and help people to care for children . If they don't support these things they are despicable hypocrites

The Progressive Patriot

[quote=parkere1]
The last area I’ll comment on has to do with gay rights. Personally, I don’t care what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms. That is between the individuals involved and as long as it is consensual, I could care less. I personally believe the gay lifestyle is destructive and d*****t, but as long as it is not pushed on me or my family, so be it. That is their choice, I just don’t agree with it. Gay marriage is not an issue of religious or civil authority as much as it is entitlement to taxpayer provided benefits. An example is gays in the military. If a gay military member contacts aids, is that now considered a service connected disability and is he/she entitled to disability pay for the rest of their lives? When a gay couple moves to a base, do they get the same consideration for base housing as a heterosexual couple for the limited available housing? There are other issues – these are just a couple. I don’t believe this makes me or my conservative friends “homophobes”. It just means we don’t agree with the lifestyle nor the government supporting it.{Quote}

Gay rights including marriage is about civil rights, and yes civil rights is an entitlement. It’s an entitlement earned by virtue of being a human being. I have a big problem with anyone who concerns themselves with costs. How can you put a price tag on rights? These are people who are being denied the same rights as others because of who they are. I fully believe that those who are opposed to full e******y, including marriage, will one day in the not too distant future be looked upon with the same scorn and distain as most people have for the segregationists of the early 20th century. The big problem with the whole marriage debate is that we, as a society are confused about whether it’s a religious covenant or a civil/legal contract. That confusion stems from the strange arrangement that there is between government and religious institutions regarding how people are married. Couples must get a license from the state, then they have the choice of taking the vows in a civil ceremony or going to a cleric. Giving that authority to the cleric is a problem in a country where there is supposed to be separation of church and state. Now, I think that we can agree that for all people , it is a legal arrangement. Therefore all people should be married in a civil/legal setting. Then, if they want the blessing of their religion, they can have a separate religious ceremony. I believe that it’s done that way elsewhere. In any case, it should be called marriage…gay or not. People who do not want a religious ceremony should not be relegated to what many might perceive as a lesser status of “Civil Union” The word “Marriage” in and of itself is very important to gay people. It is universally understood to mean a certain thing. For instance, a gay person might be turned away from visiting their partner in a hospital because some ignoramus doesn’t understand , or wants to believe that they have the same rights. .

parkere1 Loc: Texas

We'll agree to disagree. I can't support an entitlement for what I consider a d*****t and destructive life style.

Yankee Clipper

Chardo: My "rant" is full of supporting evidence....

How about backing up, supporting and justifying the use of your avatar. Che was nothing but a torturer, murderer and satists who enjoyed seeing his "enemies suffer before murdering them. He was also a devout thug Marxist elitist who took the end justifies the means to new levels. He cried and begged for his momma just before being executed for his crimes in Bolivia. I'll bet many of Che's victims died with more dignity than he did.

Perhaps your avatar is more revealing of who and what you really are.

The Progressive Patriot

What rant are you referring to?

memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)

Nice evasion.

The Progressive Patriot

I'm not evading anything, He needs to use the quote reply

4430 Loc: Little Egypt ** Southern Illinory

He was referring about your avatar and I might add rightly so !


((( Perhaps your avatar is more revealing of who and what you really are.)))

Yankee Clipper

Hey Che be careful, you may outsmart yourself trying to appear to be the Marxist intellectual you crave to be.

The Progressive Patriot

Yankee Clipper

Che Chardo: Is this an example of your superior Marxist intelligence? This diagram is possibly up to kindergarten level but is still pathetic at best. I used to be on another similar site, which is now gone, with members of similar ideological make up, but there the Marxists had much more intelligence than I see exhibited here.

I see you have tried to change your identity Che Chardo, to paraphrase Shakespeare, a rose is a rose by any other name. You're still only a "useful i***t" and will end up canon fodder for the more intelligent commissar's that are leading you down the primrose path of your destruction.

memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)

Right you are!