James

I am fiscally conservative but i also tend to be conservative on social issues, but not because of religion. I tend to be socially conservative because i think humans should have certain standards.

Most of the social conservatives on here quote the bible or use their religion as a basis for their arguments.

Most of the non religious on here seem to be social liberals who have a "if it feels good, do it" attitude.

Am I alone?

People in the U.S. are blessed with more opportunity than anyone else in the history of the planet, yet liberals don't appreciate it?

I am conservative because i believe in myself and i take responsibility for my actions. i do not believe a society can thrive or advance if you are not held accountable for yourself just as i don't believe initiative and ingenuity can be manufactured by a government controlled economy. Name one product you own that was made by the Soviets.

I believe in the freedom to prosper and the freedom to fail. Liberals do not accept responsibility; therefore do not believe in the freedom to proper or fail unless everyone benefits or suffers.

It is very simple. conservatives believe in personal responsibility and the freedom to succeed or fail.

Liberals believe in societal responsibility and that no one has the right to succeed.

Liberals: Please tell me where i am missing the boat.

Thanks.

Moderates will overwhelmingly vote conservative in 2012 which is the silver lining in the election of the most progressive (socialist) president in recent memory. The republican party and conservative principles were left for dead after the Nixon disaster. Jimmy Carter saved it. His complete ineptness and ignorance of how a free society works enabled the conservatives to win back the "moderates". The same thing is happening today.

America is clearly a country dominated by people that are not politically active or savvy. They are easily swayed by the the events of the time and vote based on the general feelings and mood of the time. After the Reagan revolution, we ended up with three moderate Presidents in a row, the last of which, George W., had some very difficult times to navigate. Isolated war is never popular for a politician, but his liberal like spending and inability to stand tall in the face of liberal deficit spending did him in. The elder George Bush wanted to be president because he felt it would complete his impressive resume. Clinton wanted it for prestige. He figured it would be easier to be President than to win an academy award. It was all about fame for him. That led the two of them to rule based on the wet finger in the air philosophy. Which way is the wind blowing. The net result was a void of leadership.

The wars and Bush's' failure to block the Franks and Dodds led sabotage of the economy along with his liberal economic policies such as the bailout sealed his fate and swayed the moderates to lean way left and elect a radical with no real life experience. When you get a president like that with a congress that leans his way, it leads to extreme policy decisions and doctrine. The moderates have no desire for more government Intrusion in their lives. They don't want to pay more taxes and most importantly, they believe in capitalism, free enterprise, and the relative economic freedom that made this country great. Eventually they realize that the radical agenda is not just hate speech propaganda thrown out by the right. They realize that what they have been hearing is true and they mobilize quickly to stop it. It is like a bunch of people standing in the middle of a boat. They run to the left rail and the boat veers left. They run back to the right and the boat veers right.

The bottom line is the vast majority of the moderates believe in free enterprise. Even though they tend to vote on emotion and what they see and feel at the moment, at the end of the day they want to keep their rights and resist government intrusion. it just takes them awhile to figure it out.

What are your thoughts?

because of the corrupt government and to some degree culture, should we cut our loses and pull out?

i am not looking for liberal anti-bush nor conservative anti-obama rants. i want to know what you think about the idea of cutting losses rather than staying the course just for the sake of saving face.

i think we should leave it if the government is inherently corrupt and the situation in Pakistan continues to deteriorate, but i can argue both sides.

Your opinion?

Olbermann can work on NFL broadcasts? It cannot be disputed that Olbermann is hateful, divisive, and a race baiter. How can someone who brainwashes simple minded liberals into hating their fellow Americans be given a NFL broadcasting job, yet a conservative talk show host can't buy part of a team?

The irony in this is amazing. I want the commissioner to explain to the American public why Rush is too divisive to be involved in the NFL, but the most hateful, divisive man in America is welcome on their broadcasts?

I realize that NBC employs him and NBC is owned by the democrats, but why hasn't the commissioner complained about a hate monger being involved in his sport?

I personally don't want politics in the NFL at all, but i really don't want a very mean spirited, bitter, hate filled simpleton to be on the broadcasts. Something should be done!!

I am not talking about rape, or health related abortion. i am taking about lack of personal responsibility abortion.

I am curious how someone can support abortion yet still attend church every Sunday. What would Jesus say about aborting a fetus that was made in Gods image?

This is not an attack on abortion proponents or Christians. i am just interested in how something so obviously irreconcilable can be spun to make it work in ones mind.

i dated a girl who's family was ultra liberal and strong abortion rights supporters and her father was a Cumberland Presbyterian minister. i asked her once how she reconciled the aborting of fetuses with the idea of worshiping god and she immediately changed the subject to something about women's rights. It is like the homosexual argument with Christians. The actual issue becomes so homogenized that it becomes palatable.

Instead of saying we are killing a living fetus, we say we are protecting women's rights. Instead of saying the Bob wants to put his deal in Toms bum, we say gay rights.

Do believers who support these things homogenize them down enough to the point that they don't actually think about what they support? That must be it, but i am interested in what Christians supporters of abortion think.

Thanks.

he is just as qualified for those as he was for the peace prize. I am for it!!

If any of you liberal robots want to respond, please tell me specifically what the Great One did in his first 12 days in office to deserve the peace prize.

Wait a minute..didn't he spend that time getting a dog? maybe that's it!!!

and we know that he was elected on a platform of "hope and change" and not on one single tangible accomplishment, and certainly none in the area of world peace, can we conclude definitively that his liberal backers here are so fully indoctrinated that they have no ability to reason at all?

It would not surprise me if he won an Oscar. He has the same qualifications as he does for the Nobel. These same defenders of incompetence will be on here talking about how he deserved that as well.. just blindly defending the indefensible...

Actually he might deserve an Oscar...

I have read all of the liberal rants about his peace prize and have yet to see anyone tell me what he did in the first 12 days of office to deserve it. what did he do prior to that to deserve it? This is what we are up against. They rant and rave about the greatness of their leader but offer no tangible fact to support it. Stupidity is a very dangerous thing.

Can he say or do anything without any push back from these people?

i am very nervous that so many people have completely lost any ability to think and now just march lock step wherever they are told. They have lost their freedom to think and are now coming after ours.

I noticed the Vatican has recently changed their official position on the possibility of life elsewhere. It appears they are hedging their bets just in case.

I am curious what the religious believe?

This question is not meant as an opportunity for non believers to bash the believers. i am seriously interested in what the believers think about something like this which has profound ramifications on what they believe.

What do your various books have to say on the matter?

Thanks.

This is not meant as a joke. Back when i was going to church, a fat preacher was on the pulpit going on and on about the sins of tobacco and alcohol. i sat there and looked at his 300+ pounds and wondered which Temple God would be proud of? His huge one or my relatively thin one even if i do enjoy a drink.

I want Christians to explain why alcohol is a sin, but heading over to the buffet and eating until you explode isn't, or at least is isn't preached against. Is a fat preacher inappropriate? Would you have a drunk preacher? Is there a difference??

Bottom line is people eating themselves to death is much more prevalent than people drinking or even smoking themselves to death.

How can we convince the liberals who live in lily white affluent areas that the policies they support are enslaving minorities and creating a never ending cycle of poverty and irresponsibility?

Is it a coincidence that those who are so vocal in their support of liberal policies have never spent any time in the inner cities that their policies have created? Why is it that Minnesota, New Hampshire, Vermont, etc., liberals won't come into the real world and understand that their policies of victimization and irresponsibility are killing the hope of millions of people?

Is it true that liberals view minorities as inferior? If so, does that make them racists?

I will use the gay debate as an example. How do churches denounce the immorality and perversion of homosexuality and use scripture to back it up for hundreds of years and then suddenly change course when they are pressured?

Unless their leader found a "holy" book under a rock or had some other sort of divine inspiration, how does a religion change their tune when what they have stood for is supposedly backed by holy scripture?

Am I the only one that sees the fraud in this? This is not an anti gay post, so don't view it that way. i just don't get where a religion based on holy scripture can change their tune about something so important and not skip a beat. If nothing else is cut and dried, should not religion be? what your book says has not changed in the 1700 or so years it has been around. How can you suddenly interpret it differently than your predecessors have over that time?

Should not gay people form their own church with their own interpretation of the Bible if they feel as though they are living within gods word? Is it incumbent on the church to change morally or is it incumbent on the person to change? Seems backwards to me.

I don't get it.

Many people say they search for a religion until they find one that fits them.

Seems to me that that is what many people do if they have not stuck to the faith of their parents. People want religion to fit them. Since there have been no prophets that we know of in the last 2000 years, what would cause you to switch? If you did, it seems to me to be an admission that you really don't have core belief.

I may be alone, but that seems completely loony. If there is a god, then he/she has expectations for his creations. Those expectations are not gray or wavering. It is inconceivable that god changes his expectations as time rolls on, yet religions do. it amazes me how few actually see the truth in that.

God is either for abortion or against it. God is either for gay behavior or against it. God either thinks women are subservient to man or he doesn't. God either wants sacrifice or he doesn't. God is OK with wealth or he isn't. etc.. etc...

The point is you can find a "religion" out there to fit your needs, but is that really honoring god or is it something to make you feel good about yourself. There are religions across the globe that interpret things differently and sometimes in opposite ways, yet they are all claiming to be doing gods will. It is an impossibility.

The one truth i know is that if you believe god exists and needs your worship, then you best try to figure out what God wants instead of what you want. Anything else is nonsense. Agree?

Health insurance should be for serious issues that require surgery or hospitalization. Why do I pay insurance to get a checkup or for routine visits? The problem with health insurance is it is too broad; therefore, it is too big. The idiots who say that car insurance is mandatory as an argument for mandatory health insurance leave out that it is only LIABILITY insurance that is mandatory. You are not required to insure fixing your own car if you choose not to.

Think about how much more expensive it would be to take care of routine things like car maintenance, appliance replacement, etc., if they were handled through an insurance company. The answer seems to be to eliminate most of the unnecessary insurance and shrink it to only what is required. That along with serious tort reform would eliminate much of the red tape and cost.

The person who abuses their things pays more to replace and fix them. Same thing with the fat people, who suck up most of the insurance money the rest of us pay.. If you choose to be fat, then you will pay more to repair your health. It seems pretty simple, but then again the current proposal is not really about health care is it???

I was raised Christian but I realized as an adult that there are very intelligent Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc., in addition to very intelligent people of various sects within those religions (even Mormon) (that was a joke, don't get all worked up!!).

What i want is for believers to explain to me why the believe they are right and others are wrong. I do not want you to use the word faith in your answer, because that is a cop out. Tell me specifically why you are right and others are wrong. Do not quote a book either, as every religion has one that they use to claim righteousness.

I do not want any smart *** atheist answers. This question is not for you. I am asking it because it is a fundamental pillar in my reasons for not believing in any organized religion.

Thanks.

I was raised on the bible and i don't recall Jesus talking about building big, expensive churches or temples in his honor. What would he think if he walked up to the typical protestant mega church and saw all of the luxury cars/suvs in the parking lots and all of the high end furniture and fixtures in these palaces that are supposedly built for the purpose of worshiping him?

I am not looking for smart *** atheist answers here. I want true believers to explain the disconnect between what Jesus said and did and the luxurious style of worship they now engage in.

How many Christians leave church and go to a fancy restaurant or country club for lunch? Is that what Jesus would tell you to do?

I believe it is because their leadership need something to point to as an example of capitalism not working. They created the welfare state for that political purpose and maintain it for the same reason. It cannot be disputed that irresponsibility and victimization are cornerstones in the liberal agenda. Why do you think they do it and why are so many people (faux liberals) blind to what is really going on?

The real liberal wants government control of all means of production and creates and exploits the poor for that purpose. The faux liberal just wants to feel good without thinking, so they get sucked in.

Why are so many people not seeing the obvious?

Do you support health care reform because you believe that it is a right and no one should have to pay?

Do you support it because you think it costs to much and you want it to be affordable for all?

Do you support it because you ultimately want government controlling everything?

If you support it because you believe it is right and should be free, then please explain where you draw the line on what is a right versus a personal responsibility.

If you support it because you want it to be affordable for all then please explain what you will do with those who choose not to enroll or more importantly those are on very limited income and still cannot afford it. does your ideal plan have some sort of sliding scale of affordability based on what you make?

If you support it because you want government control of everything, please explain why you want to give up your personal freedom and be subject to the whims of government.

for all three, please tell me what you think Doctors should make. Should they be capped? Do you believe all hospitals should become government owned?

Do you believe that medical school students will be told what to practice and where? If not, then explain how we get around that.

When the best and brightest no longer go to medical school because of government control, then will our health care system suffer? why or why not?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=200908...

Look at Luke's answer to this question. He is openly advocating concentration camps for those that disagree with him. Do other liberals agree with him? Is this what MSNBC and the left want the end game to be? Does this have something to do with the "civilian security force" Obama wants?

It is clear the left is being programmed to focus on hate rather than actually think about issues. How far will it go? At what point should citizens become alarmed?

Think about this. Do you have insurance for an appliance breaking and needing to be replaced? If your car breaks down, do you have insurance to get it repaired? Do you have insurance to cover the cost of school books or lunches? Do you have insurance to buy new clothes when needed?

I think this whole thing is being addressed the wrong way. What people need is catastrophic health insurance to cover big issues, much like homeowners insurance. Why should i use insurance to get a checkup or have my flu treated? When did this become necessary?

What we need is serious tort reform so Dr's. don't have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on malpractice insurance (not an exaggeration). A close look at health costs will tell you it is the lawyers and the insurance companies that are driving the cost up. Dr's. charge more because they have to deal with insurance bureaucracy hassles and lawyers greed. Get rid of all of that. Simplify the process.

The other reason it makes sense is because many people who pay insurance premiums never recoup their costs. Healthy people are subsidizing unhealthy people and while that is fine as long as it is legitimate health issues, the fact is that obese people and others who don't take care of themselves are spending the vast majority of the money. Eliminate that and put personal responsibility back into it. I don't want to pay for the obese persons 15 trips to the Dr. a year because they don't take care of themselves. Enough already!

Thoughts?