History has taught us that collectivism fails. Our tendency as humans is to desire the path of least resistance. If you were in the EXACT middle (not rich but not poor) and you had a choice: (1) INCREASE your work ethic to become rich (and have to pay MORE in taxes because of such), or (2) DECREASE your work ethic to access welfare programs, which would most people choose? Work hard and be PUNISHED, or be lazy and have everything HANDED to you?
Conservatism has to be relative to something. For instance, conservatism in religion is called "orthodoxy".
I believe it is nothing but a word coined by politicians, and overused by media outlets such as FoxNews, and EIB network. Just because people use the word in a collective sense doesn't necessarily mean what it does.
@ffairlane57 I'm referring to conservatism in the political realm. Even there, we have social and fiscal conservatism. Fiscal conservatism believes in limited government, which supports the original framers of the Constitution. The Constitution is a set of negative limitations on the federal government. History shows the larger government gets, the more freedoms are lost, and the more taxes are raised. History has also shown that government is inherently wasteful.
@ffairlane57 If you don't like the political terms such as liberal, libertarian, classic liberal, classic conservative, ne-conservatives, socialists, fascists, communists, democrats or republicans. It all comes down to two things. Individualism or Collectivism. There is no other way to put it. Individuals on the right, Collectivists on the left.
It used to be virtuous to believe in principles but the now you must be 'pragmatic' and one should 'compromise,' otherwise you are a 'radical!'
Leftists often use benign rhetoric; seemingly positive words, to subvert their intentions, which acts as a mantra or 'code' for Socialist! Phrases like 'Social Justice' and using 'International' in place of 'foreign.'
I love conservative videos! I love even more how whiny liberals come to bitch and swear and act all tough over the internet while they would run and hide like pussies when faced with a conservative in real life.
zzz this is just funny "big cities rely on government" that means there effected negatively by bad government and positively by good government.
-
now lets see, which acclaimed conservative party was in control of the government when we first started spiraling into this rescission?
---
Bill Maher: "The Republicans always run on the idea that government isn't very effective. Well, not the way you do it. Well, not the way you do it. But it can be effective"
Again, why do you state 'beliefs' that only liberals uphold? I could care less about the debates between libs and cons...you're both twits - but to state your conservative beliefs and presume your party supports them (literally) is madness.
And you keep providing examples of success by showing liberal activists like Brad Pitt, etc.
And that is why I am not a Conservative: you are without basis.
@milackk7 Brad Pitt may be a liberal, but his actions after Katrina were purely private and not governmental. Bringing up Pitt's ideology means nothing in my comparison.
The Republican party does not necessarily support conservatism, take a look at Bush or the last GOP Congress, nothing conservative about those boys.
Wrong. Such as Liberalism descends from the word Liberalis. Conservatism descends from the word conservar. Conservar means to conserve or to save or reserve energy. It doesn't mean to oppose liberalism, oppose government spending, oppose regulations, oppose environment protection, bring the church into schools or our lives, oppose immigration, or to immediately support national defense. It means holding energy back on any particular matter to think wisely.
@TheRadicalRyushin On the contrary, to conserve means less government spending. Less debt. Less intrusion. More privatization. Being frugal, pragmatic - especially since government does not create or produce wealth, it simply spends wealth.
something i like about your videos is that you state your reasons on why to vote republican. i often find it ridiculous the side people take either way. liberal or conservative. thats what i like about your videos even though i'm a liberal :)
i was hoping to tell you something. for years i have looked at peoples views on politics and wondered why they take that certain side. often i have found there reason very ridiculous whether there republican or democrat i want a valid reason.
i wanted to say although i am a liberal i do feel glad in your videos you state your reasons of why your a republican :)
@TheAmericanAnarchist Sure conservatives support free market principles. Most conservatives where really pissed over TARP. Part of the free market is alllowing business to fail so new ones can take their place.
@TheAmericanAnarchist On the contrary, warfare is NOT a conservative ideal. Yes we believe in a strong military for DEFENSE, however, we are against big government while we believe strong law enforcement is good for society provided our freedoms and liberties are not intruded upon.
@character654 No that's McCain. That bill has NOTHING to do with conservatism. One of the main ingredients of conservatism is LESS government, LESS intrustion and more freedom. That bill flies in the face of conservatism.
@character654 I agree with you wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, youtube does not allow you to change your name once it's made. This was from the 2008 election. I figured "weenee McCain was a hnd sight better than Obama. So I'm stuck with it. I like Ron Paul a lot!
A few issues with this radical conservative idea are that small governments do not necessarily allow for full protection of constitutional rights, they hinder large scale initiatives. The idea of welfare which you promoted as Liberal is that of a safety net, this is a common modern view of welfare, but it is not the only form, positive welfare is the provision of opportunities for people to “help themselves”. The idea government would combine the two. And by the way, I am not a Liberal.
@yadsik I agree. but government has failed welfare considerably. There has been such waste, abuse and fraud in every government program. That's why the private sector is FAR better at meeting the needs of Americans than the government ever will be.
The Constitution is what limits government. No where does theConstitution mandate large scale initiatiaves except national security and maintaining a strong defense.
@weneedmccain "That's why the private sector is FAR better at meeting the needs of Americans than the government ever will be."
.
The private sector inevitably shuts out many who cannot afford to pay. With a government system you can tax the wealthy who can afford to contribute, thus allowing for access from the lower economic strata. The private sector cannot be effectively monitored to avoid waste, abuse and fraud, but in a government system "appropriate checks and balances" solve this.
@yadsik What???? Government has a system of checks and balances? Let's see, Medicare - bankrupt, Medicaid - bankrupt, social Security - bankrupt. What checks and balances? The federal government can't even stay within the boundaries of the Constitution - they're mandate! Long before the government got involved, communities, towns and cities took care of their own folks.
Private business is based on performance. If it does a good job, it prospers, if it doesn't do a good job it fails.
Not currently. We can, however, restructure these systems without cutting their benefits and increasing tax burdens on those who cannot afford it. A total radical shift to privatization, on the other hand, would attempt to achieve maximum possible profit, which implies meeting customer demand on the largest possible scale - as opposed to providing best serves according to government criteria.
Where control of an industry is mediated by a capitalist government, is under-funded and preyed upon by corporations, it will decline. The solution is not to privatize, but to maximize possible funds in a public system. Where there is a private system, hospitals would attempt to "ATTRACT" patients, creating pseudo-illnesses like you see in infomercials, and can turn away anyone who cannot be cured for PROFIT. And let them die. But so long as they make a profit, they are satisfied.
@yadsik Furthermore, why should the wealthy be penalized? Why should success be penalized? You can go after any money, but eventually, inevitably, it all rolls down hill unto the middle classs. Tax gasoline, and watch our product costs soar. Tax energy, and watch our energy bills skyrocket. Tax health care and watch our costs soar.
Trickle down is always applied for the good or not. Tax a corporation and they'll increase the cost to buy their product. Who pays? We do.
@weneedmccain "Why should success be penalized?" . Success at exploitation should be penalized because it is unethical. . "Tax gasoline." . Nationalize it. We have already passed peak oil anyway, a socialist mode of production would be the only one which allows for transition to renewable sources. . "Tax energy." . Nationalize. . "Tax health care." . Illogical if it is in the public sector. And this only shows the unethical nature of having it privatized - the fact that we must extract profit.
@yadsik Are you kidding me? Look what politicians have done with public education, medicaid, medicare, welfare, social security - THEY'RE ALL BANKRUPT!
Understand, government does not create wealth - EVER. It spends wealth.
Making a profit is not a bad thing. It is the greatest stimulus out there. I mean you're spouting marxism here. Oh that worked real well huh.
@yadsik And that's exactly what they do - or they move overseas. The problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money.
That's happened in Illinois, California and New York. All the big cities are millions in debt. And then the good States have to bail out the bad States. Those States are very liberal, lots of liberal,socialistic polices.
Every big union, socialistic, anti-business State is slowly dying. That's what socialism does.
@weneedmccain "liberal,socialistic polices" is an oxymoron. Liberalism is very much a contradiction to socialism. I am against any and every form of liberalism.
I do not support American trade unions, they are mostly corrupt and Mafia like. Honestly, I don't support any socialists in the United States either, I think it is contrary to Socialism to promote the raising of wages in the first world where it would cause an inverse fall in the third.
conservatives did not want independence from king george.liberal rebels fought and won democracy for you and i.liberal got child labor laws ,womens right to vote,intergrated the military and schools, just what have conservatives done to nurture public good in the usa.give corporations person hood??
@stealthgerm Wow, are you spinning nicely. Our Founding Fathers were liberals, but the definition has changed 180 degrees since the 1700's. Go ahead, look it up, that definition is now called conservatism.
Also, it was Republicans who first authored the Bill of Rights. Abraham Lincoln being our first Republican.
What have democrats done? For women? For blacks? For schools?
Our government in Denmark has completely destroyed conservatism in small towns where I live. We live about 100 people close to eachother but nobody really cares about anyone. In fact, I hardly know anyone but a few families.
soooo, this guy just want nno government, huh? What is a society without the government to behold it? I think you, sir, are also a little homophobic. Uphold the family values? I am personally gay and family values iINCLUD GAY MARRIAGE!
@pianoplayer95 On the contrary, I am NOT a libertarian. Family values are based upon the best conditions for raising children. A gay marriage cannot produce offspring in and of itself. Furher, a male and female provide a good balance for children. That balance is certainly upset with two same sexes as parents. So in my view, gay marriage and family values is an oxymoron.
I agree on ron paul, but i am from Minnesota and Michelle bachmaann is just one big lair, she just says those things to get elected, that district has always been republican held, she says stuff but never does them, i've seen her voting record, ron paul is a good man that i can agree with in many issues, but Michelle is diffidently not.
This is ridiculous. Totally bias. And btw, if conservatives care so much about civil liberties, why do they continually try and remove the First Amendment, for example?
@seany505 We enjoy the first amendment very much thank you. The Tea Party groups are having a hayday by properly exercising their first amendment rights thank you very much!
@weneedmccain Palin killed the Tea Party movement. Now it's run by a bunch of neocons who give lip service to the constitution yet support people like McCain (you remember S.3081). If someone doesn't support the good neocon of the day, he is silenced and removed for peaceably exercising his first amendment rights contrary to the Republican party line (comment pending approval). Ron Paul started the movement, now he doesn't even get an invite to attend anymore. R.I.P Tea Party.
@character654 Judging by the many elections in America I would disagree with you. The Tea Party folks are alive and well. Ron Paul is still a patriot in my book, and I'm sure many Tea party folks as well.
Forget about McCain, he's history. He's either going to have to get on the train, or it will run him over. GO RON PAUL! He will develop a Constitutional Conservative Coalition in the House.
@weneedmccain The Tea Party in its current form is merely a Neocon love fest (after Palin hijacked it). Its original intent is dead. they are back to Republicans good, Democrats bad. If McCain were to get the nomination this coming election the Tea Partiers would be whole heartedly backing him and ignoring good people like Chuck Baldwin.
@character654 I would disagree. The Tea Party has been very successful in rooting out many progressive/moderate/liberal Republicans and replacing them with folks who will honor the Constitution and put the federal government on a permanent diet.
There's no way McCain could get past the Tea Party folks. I'll bet he's seen his last term in the Senate as well. Chuck Baldwin is a good man!
@weneedmccain I would disagree that the current Tea Parties "success in rooting out any Republican, let alone the neocons such as their poster girl Sarah Palin. Too many of these people go by what their candidate SAYS ignoring what they DO.
I could make a list miles long of Tea Party supported candidates that either have no clue what the Constitution is or take the George W. Bush position that it is just a "G-- D----- piece of paper!"
@character654 I know MANY tea party candidates, and every single one of them are in firm support of holding to the letter of the Constitution. That's a vital interest among Tea Party folks. The Constitution has been given nothing but lip service for decades by our elected officials. The Constitution is one of the main tenets of the Tea party groups.
@weneedmccain The Constitution says that Congress has the responsibility to coin the nations money, NOT a private bank. That one thing is something that 90% of (Tea Party supported) so called conservative Republicans completely ignore, yet the problems this country faces as a result of the Fed are immense.
In Ron Paul's Tea Party ending the unconstitutional Fed was high on the list.
In Palin's version, getting more Republicans elected is the main focus.
@character654 I have yet to be invovled in a Tea Party rally where I didn't see someone holding up a sign that read - end the Fed. I agree wholeheartedly with you and Ron Paul on this issue.
I don't know if Palin has addressed this issue. The reason people like Palin is she has bucked the Republican establishment many times in favor of a conservative candidate. How conservative? How Constitutionally prepared? Who knows, there's a hundred shades of pale. But they all beat the status quo
@ajuk1 Denying climate change? Are you suggesting those who don't buy into global warming are in denial? I think you're all in denial. Scientists fudging numbers to make themselves politically correct? The earth has been cooling since 1998. Predicted by some scientists, and scorned by those looking to enrich themselves with government grants. Global warming is nothing more than Y2K on steroids.
You state: "The government has never been effective at running anything." Then you claim we need a strong defense. The government runs the defense. Does that mean defense is not effective? If it is ineffective, why would you call for more of it?
Further you state, "Many homes have not been repaired." You then point to private action as successfully repairing homes. Well, aren't some of the non repaired homes owned by private individuals? If so, why hasn't the private action worked?
@BraskySTU It means as I sfated, there's great inefficiency. It's the men and women who make our military the best in the world. Still, there's great waste.
Many private homes have not been repaired because the government red tape. While the private sector rolled up their sleeves and wham, new homes.
If this was your attempt at spin, it doesn't work well, i suggest watching the video again and take notes this time.
@weneedmccain It simply appears that your statements are logically contradictory.
It is almost without doubt that some of the non-repaired homes are owned by private individuals. If private action is as effective as you state, why are these homeowners not repairing their own property?
I am not claiming public action is any more effective than private action at repairing these homes, I am making no claim. I am simply asserting that your arguments appear to be logically contradictory.
@BraskySTU They are ALL private homes! My point is the government system designed to rebuild the community is so frought with red tape and bogged down by many many hoops that nothing is getting done. Meanwhile, the private sector, Habitat for Humanity, Brad Pitt and others, on their own initiative jumped in and quickly tore down the old in place of the new.
Which entity was quickest in rebuilding the community? It's a no brainer!
Yet, why do folks like Sarah Palin wave the "conservatism" banner. You can't have it both ways. A conservative politician is oxymoron. Or, perhaps more correctly, an ox on a moronic quest.
@MrChappy39 I would disagree. Palin is a real conservative. She demonstrated that as Governor of Alaska. She stuck to her principles and uprooted corruption even in her own party. She served the people of Alaska well.
So I don't think it's impossible to be a conservative and a politician. Nevertheless, I agree it's hard. Look at Denny Hastert, went into Congress a lowly high school wrestling coach, and came out a multi-millionare.
You are in error. You think Bush was a conservative? He bloated government more than Clinton! Just because someone has an R after their name does not make them a conservative.
I'm referring to TRUE conservatives. Look how much money Bush spent with no child left behind!
I agree our democracy should not be up for sale. I believe what Obama is doing with elected officials is bribery, plain and simple.
We the people are considered as mere sheep to those who rule the roost(lobbyists, influence peddlers etc) Its all just a big joke to them..and the joke is at our expense. They continue to keep us in the dark just enough to use us all again for the next election cycle...Its time to BREAK THE CYCLE! No more Usary, Monetary, Political or otherwise!!!
One often quoted definition of Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results...indeed!
Ignorance is a politicians greatest ally. We see this over and over again. I live in Illinois and it's par for the course.
Example: Andy McKenna ran for governor, in his first ad, he claimed to be the only real outsider. Truth: As chairman of the IRP for 5 years he was the biggest insider of all the candidates.
But, I knew folks I had to convince that all was not as it seemed. They buy into the propaganda.
@OperationTailGunner It's true. We are sheep. And like sheep we are detined for slaughter. There is nothing new under the sun. To change government/s means we have to change ourselves first. If we only point out the "other" person or entities faults we fail - miserably. Government is the reflection of the people and truely the representation of the people.
Bush was merely masquerading as a Conservative, as a Christian as an American etc....G.W. Bush fits the text book definition of a political hack...a con artist...a sock puppet.
If his dad was not HW Bush, he would be nothing in this world today....too bad!
Could you point out a "true conservative" because I've never seen a politician that fits the description most conservatives provide. Maybe Ron Paul, but he's more libertarian.
Fred Thompson comes to mind. Huckabee has too many taints of "compassionate" conservatism of the Bush brand. Sarah Palin would fall under a real conservative as well. McCain would have been Bush II the sequel, Obama got that one right.
Ron Paul certainly has some libertarian leanings but he's also 90% conservative.
You and everyone else are 100% wrong in always saying this is a democracy! Well it may be now, but is supposed to be a Republic. Look into it and compare the two. In a democracy the government has the power to take away individual rights, and in a Republic they CAN NOT!
@OperationTailGunner I cannot disagree, although there are a few good folks in Congress, Ron Paul and Michelle Bachman are two of them who continue to hold up the Constitution as a framework for all legislation.
I now know that I don't belong in this world. My conservative principles have isolated me from the world, and now, I am left facing scrutiny every day from my friends, peers, etc. It's hard to live in this world, but yet I trek on in spite of them. They can't take my conservative principles from me.
The only ideology that has actually changed in definition through the history is conservatism. They were defenders of monarchism when they started off and now they are a bit more democratic.But the standard definition of conservatism is still high value of the church, state and family. They also dislike change and they believe in a strong hierchy.
But I guess you're not a real conservativ (I hope). You are more of a neo-conservative, which is a mix between liberalism and conservatism.
See now this is really semantics. The conservatives of today were just like the liberals 200 years ago. And the liberals of today are really progressive socialists, so the terms have morphed 180 degrees.
Nevertheless, you are correct in asserting what the definition of liberal used to be, and may still be defined as that, nevertheless, if you take a look at who the people are calling themselves liberals today, it's a far cry from your definition.
Like I just said, liberalism hasn't changed. Just because you call yourself a liberal, doesn't mean you ARE a liberal. It's the definition that counts. If a someone calls himself a liberal, but at the same time doesn't fit the description of one, then he obviously isn't a liberal.
And based on the definition of conservatism, then you don't really seem to be a conservative. You're more of a neo-conservative, which is a mix between liberalism and conservatism.
Liberalism and conservatism were both created during the french revolution. Liberalism overthrew the tyrant king and executed all the nobles. Conservatism was created as a reaction againts the violence of the liberals. The Conservatists were againts the revolution and all for the tyranny and dictatorship of the french king. Liberals wanted freedom, while conservatists wanted dictatorship and unequality.
Conservatism has since its birth stood againts change, and often positive change.
That's not entirely true. Conservatives stand for common sense, what works, and has worked in the past.
So we come against socialistic ideas or the growth of government because frankly government is not designed to be big. Our framers made a negative constitution to prevent government from getting too big.
Liberalism back in the French Revolution is very close to today's conservatism, while liberalism today looks a lot more like progressivism.
Liberalism hasn't changed one bit. The definition of liberalism is still free market, individualism and small goverment. You can read it in any dictionary. And those who claim to be liberals and at the same time believe in the things you are saying, then they aren't liberals. They might be social liberals but they are definetly not liberals.
They're actually more progressive socialists. Obama calls himself a liberal but look what he's doing to the free market, individualism and growing government by leaps and bounds.
I'm sorry, but the definition has been changed by those who profess to be liberals.
Nevertheless, your standard definition of what a liberal used to be is correct.
What you speak of sounds more like liberalism in a way. Well, more like a mix between liberalism and conservatism. Conservatism is about putting the church, the state and the family first. They believe in keeping traditional values and they dislike radical change. Liberalism=individualism, small goverment and free market. But I guess neo-conservatism is more like liberalism mixed with conservatism. Liberalism+conservatism=neo-conservatism.
I would disagree. Conservatism and libertarianism YES. But liberalism is anything but small government.
Liberals believe in BIG government and are anti-corporation. They believe in the re-distribution of wealth and providing massive entitlements that go far beyond the scope of the Constitution. That pesky document that holds our government at bay.
Yes, most conservatives place high value on family and community because that has worked so well for so many years.
2bpilot is correct. History has proven that Ronald Reagan was one of America's greatest Presidents. I think the greatest in the 20th Century.
As much as they tried to tear him down, his record and accomplishments restored America. I just wish he had had a Republican Congress to control spending. (Not that all GOP run Congress's has been fiscally responsible, certainly not the last GOP Congress.
You had 1.5 minutes of acceptable (not necessarily correct) and reasonable analysis, but for whatever reason the whole things gets propagandistic, and outside of the fundamental construct of what constitutes conservatism. The term is an extremely important one, and should be studied and understood as a political philosophy. And if there is anything that gives the lack of understanding away, is the very use of the term 'liberal'. Liberalism is also a political philosophy which should be known.
Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
McCain is not a true conservative, Ron Paul is as lots of people here have been saying. The mainstream RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) are NOT true conservatives.
I agree with you 100% McCain would have been another "compassionate" conservative like Bush.
However, with the viral video, DEAR MR. OBAMA on this page, I'm stuck with the name. I went with McCain in the general only because he was the only one who could defeat Obama.
"falling overboard on a ship he would throw a life vest and teach them how to swim" that's not connected to conservative values that's called morality!
Really? Then why do we have people who have been on welfare to the 3rd and 4th generation? They are barely keeping their head above water? Has anyone taught them or trained them? Has anyone help them become self-sufficient? Perhaps even be prosperous?
No, they are still in the water with a lifevest on. Oh those compassionate Democrats.
Conservatism is clearly a failed system. Granted, It may work on a very small level, however, on a large scale it is impossible. That's part of the reason that Ronald Reagan ran up a huge defeciet
California, Bankrupt, Illinois & New York close behind. Now look at the States run by Conservatives, they have surpluses.
Reagan did not run up the huge deficit, it was Democrats who controlled Congress and refused to curb spending. Reagan got us out of Stagflation and the misery index of Carter. He did that by cutting taxes, but there was no curb on spending.
Reagan pulled us out of the misery index and stagflation. What does that mean, JOBS were created. That means poor people can get a job and stop being poor!
I have no idea what you're talking about over the drug war, that was mainly stopping drugs from entering the country.
AIDS? They had just discovered AIDS, and you're wrong, homosexuals were the ones hit hardest.
HW didn't get elected because he went back on a promise to not raise taxes - but I agree, he did not handle issues well
Regardless of what Conservatism really is, all the American people see it as is the party that won't even try to be diplomatic and bi-partisan, who will stop at nothing to win over voters with tactics like fear mongering and fact bending.
You've even started claiming to be on the same side as Al-Qaeda JUST because you don't agree with the direction the country is going in. Pure hypocrisy.
You ask the American people "what is happening to this country?". I ask you, what has happened to politics?
Where there are more government programs there's more money, which creates more opportunity for fraud and waste.
Look at the small town banks, they're fine. They maintained their lending practices. Only the major banks, national banks were seriously hit.
Big cities haul in a lot more revenue than small towns. Chicago has the highest sales tax in the nation, plus super high property tax, yet Chicago is in serious debt.
You are correct, but those making those regulations, Democrats & Republicans too, are using tax dollars to feed off the public trough. In short, they don't really care about the poor and needy, it's just an excuse to soak up more of our taxes.
Every city, could function very well, and be prosperous if they lived within their means, cut out waste and fraud and adopted many small town ideologies.
So we should just give up? Stop working toward that future of no wasteful spending, while providing everything a citizen needs to succeed at life, regardless of how much money they have?
This is the 21st century. It's time to get serious about our future. Conservatism is a thing of the Egyptians and Romans, and what happened to them again?
Poor (adj): Lacking material possessions, such as money, the single thing that you must have in this Capitalist society in order to go to college, start a business, etc.
I do kind of agree with you onwelfare, but the claim that there isn't a single "Liberal" program that helps the poor is like saying there isn't a single AIG Board Director that doesn't love taxpayer bailouts.
Funny how rich conservatives have to borrow from the poor in order to keep that top 1% of american wealth safe from them.
You'll notice the vast majority of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG were at some point Democratic appointees of Bill Clinton's. Some of them are Obama's appointees now. These folks are NOT conservatives.
In an idealic society, liberalism would flourish, but this is far from an idealic society.
weneedmccain: I think you should start with what you said at 2:26. Much of the beginning you are describing the results of a conservative approach: family, small government, individual responsibility. You should start by describing the approach of a conservative: when making a decision, a person (including a government official) should focus on the values, traditions and principles that have sustained us as a nation. Then, reasoning from there, you get results of strong family, ind. resp, etc
It's a sad day in America when hopeleness and despair are seen as a demad to be filled with tools of destruction like alcohol, weapons and poor food choices in abundance. It's so easy to just say they're lazy isn't it. Look up Fredrick Nietzsche' "Will To Power" concept to better understand how unregulated free market will never work
I think you need to investigate Televisons low level hypsosis capabilities to better understand your biased views. When you watch news media your critical thinking and analysis turn off and is replaced by the emotional response. Which explains hatred for the opposite side. The truth is we just trust our leaders tell us the truth. We don't really know for sure if any of the facts you said are true. We just trust that they're true. Whoever has the loudest voice and the most money wins.
This has nothing to do with the media. I never met a liberal who wasn't a fiscal conservative with his own money. So why shouldn't our taxes be treated as such?
Go ahead and spend like Congress and see where you are two years from now. This is just everyday life experience.
I don't trust ANY of them, well, mostly any of them on both sides of the isle. Bush and the GOP spent like Dems for 8 years!
My facts are based more on my own experiences and those around me through the 80's.
Thank you for describing this for everyone. This just reinforces the fact that I'm a conservative. People need to open their eyes and realize we need to change this country's direction to one of a conservative path. We need the Constitution back!
Awesome video! Could not of said it any better myself. It just speaks words that really make you think about whats going on today? Where are we? thank you very the great video!
Except for the fact a year before scientists said new orleans will happan because of a design flaw. No conservatist tried to protect their family from the impending disaster nor whould have been happy if the government did it for them so this brings up a paradox in this videos statement. You can't say civilians came and made homes in new orleans as a perfect example of no one went to build new storm management systems a year before. People doing needed things is historically bull unless forced.
Liberals always use the "If you are pro life, why do you support war?" The thing is, their are evil people in the world, if Hitler was still alive, how many more people would have died. One death saved millions of lives. I tell these leftist that I'm pro justice, I'm for the judgment of the guilty and the protection of the innocent.
Pro life is a reaction against the belief that some categories of human being can be viewed as "technically" human, yet stripped of their status as a "real" human, or a human "worthy" of rights.
Pro life (to me, anyway) means, if you are human, you automatically deserve rights. Nobody gets to appropriate to themselves the "right to choose" which humans live or die, which humans get rights and which are expendable.
There can be no category of being that is human yet has no right to life.
I agree with this video and its summary of Conservatism....but I don't understand why this guy was pushing for McCain. Senator McCain is not a conservative. We need representatives that do not just call themselves conservative or stand behind a party with claims of conservatism. McCain and many like him are no more conservative because they are in the Republican Party, than I am a car if I stand in the garage. If you want a conservative, do your homework and find one. Ron Paul for starters.
Absolutely! It'll be a pleasure and i'm looking forward to it. In these times, It's hard to find something on the internet that can be safely watched and listened to, let a teaching tool. I'm so glad that I got to listen to your video. Man you can't imagine how hard it is to be a conservative these days. Just look at the multitude of trash that's on this YouTube website, spewing their vitriol for anything that is remotely conservative or "NeoCon" as they put it. Thanks again for the invite sir!
It is unfortunate that many in the Republican party have changed their conservative ways for some limelight and approval from the media. Neither was a good choice and many of these Republicans paid the price of being booted out of office. Rightfully so as they deserved it. We now have possibly one of the worse and the most inexperienced person leading our nation and it shows. Our economy was faltering and Obama decides to embark a mammoth spending spree, and blames Bush for any setbacks!
I'm about to begin producing a series called REAL REPUBLICAN. It will be youth oriented and will hopefully, in an entertaining fashion teach the youth about true conservatism and what it means to be a REAL REPUBLICAN.
I'm a black and I have conservative views, I grew up in a family that voted always Democratic I myself did. Interesting, African Americans are small business owners like my grandfather, are conservative on social issues like gay marriage, abortion, immigration, and keeping more of what they own, very religous but you explain to me why blacks don't vote republican. It isn't that all blacks want handouts, welfare, and an easy life because that is a myth.
Blacks don't vote Republican because they've been fed a lie. The lie is Democrats care about blacks, when really the opposite is true.
All democrats care about is securing the black vote. And the Union vote, and the trial lawyers vote, and now the hispanic vote. They will say whatever they have to say and prop up the Jesse Jackson's of the world to push thier cause.
But the black population is wising up and hopefully hispanics who also have conservative social values.
Democrats don't have to worry about the union vote. Reagan fired union air traffic controlers in the early 80's because he hated unions. Republicans want to keep you poor but suck retards back in by preaching family values and gay bashing. Most poor people are minorities, and with tax cuts to the rich, there is no incentive to vote republican for them. Go back to school. Trickle down economics doesn't work
Trickle down works on the notion that if a you give someone or a company extra money they are going to spend it. It doesn't work however if they save it for themselves. FACT! That's why it's inconclusive. You cannot pressume to know what poeple are going to do with money. Look at the Reagan years. The notion of massive company layoffs wasn't in our vocabulary yet. But company's had all that extra money right through tax cuts. Never underestimate the power of greed.
If you own a company that is prospering, you want it to prosper more, you have to hire more people. More people means more people paying taxes. That is trickle down.
On the contrary, employment and jobs boomed under Reagan.
Even with greed, those who want to make a lot of money, have to employ the people to make the goods, transport the goods, sell the goods.
Watch trickle down work when Cap and Trade hit the utility companies, it all rolls downhill.
David Stockman. Office of managemnt and budget under Reagan. "Do you realize the greed that came to the forefront? The hogs were really feeding. The greed level, the level of oppurtunism, just got out of control. The asministation basic strategy was to match or exceed the Democrats, and we did." His words on the 1981 tax cuts
Tha miricle of the republican party is that is has tricked people into defending the rich. If i was rich i'd probably be a republican too. You should be able to have as much money as you can earn in my book. But lets' give a pathway for the poor to follow so they can have the opportunity to become well off if they work for it. But somehow we've got poor republicans? Isn't that an oxymoron. You know you have genuine cromagnanman when he's poor but still votes republican.
See, now you're listening to Democratic talking points. The Democrats have been purportedly helping the poor for decades, all they did was make them dependent on government and keep them in poverty, that's the miracle of the Democratic party, and these people keep voting for them.
We have third and fourth generations of welfare folks barely keeping their heads above water.
How are poor people supposed to learn to swim with liquor stores, gun shops, and fast food restaruants dispraportionally higher in low income areas. Nice job free market. You have third generation welfare folks because the wealthy have killed peoples' hope.
The free market fills a demand, that's how it works. If there's no demand, the market suffers. The free market, is and always has been consumer driven.
No, the Democrats have put their arms around the poor, told them, we're on your side, then give them $100 a week to live on.
Meanwhile, all the money designed to run these social"programs" is absorbed by those running the programs, with some going back into campaign coffers. That's how it works and why the poor are still poor.
So you just gave all conservative views, now why in the world would you still vote domocrat? Oh btw pls dont vote republican either, VOTE FOR CONSERVATIVES
History has taught us that collectivism fails. Our tendency as humans is to desire the path of least resistance. If you were in the EXACT middle (not rich but not poor) and you had a choice: (1) INCREASE your work ethic to become rich (and have to pay MORE in taxes because of such), or (2) DECREASE your work ethic to access welfare programs, which would most people choose? Work hard and be PUNISHED, or be lazy and have everything HANDED to you?
BlackFox0911 2 weeks ago
Conservatism has to be relative to something. For instance, conservatism in religion is called "orthodoxy".
I believe it is nothing but a word coined by politicians, and overused by media outlets such as FoxNews, and EIB network. Just because people use the word in a collective sense doesn't necessarily mean what it does.
ffairlane57 11 months ago 2
@ffairlane57 I'm referring to conservatism in the political realm. Even there, we have social and fiscal conservatism. Fiscal conservatism believes in limited government, which supports the original framers of the Constitution. The Constitution is a set of negative limitations on the federal government. History shows the larger government gets, the more freedoms are lost, and the more taxes are raised. History has also shown that government is inherently wasteful.
weneedmccain 11 months ago
@ffairlane57 If you don't like the political terms such as liberal, libertarian, classic liberal, classic conservative, ne-conservatives, socialists, fascists, communists, democrats or republicans. It all comes down to two things. Individualism or Collectivism. There is no other way to put it. Individuals on the right, Collectivists on the left.
AroundSun 11 months ago
It used to be virtuous to believe in principles but the now you must be 'pragmatic' and one should 'compromise,' otherwise you are a 'radical!'
Leftists often use benign rhetoric; seemingly positive words, to subvert their intentions, which acts as a mantra or 'code' for Socialist! Phrases like 'Social Justice' and using 'International' in place of 'foreign.'
MrWatchdawg77 1 year ago
I love conservative videos! I love even more how whiny liberals come to bitch and swear and act all tough over the internet while they would run and hide like pussies when faced with a conservative in real life.
Dodo251 1 year ago
zzz this is just funny "big cities rely on government" that means there effected negatively by bad government and positively by good government.
-
now lets see, which acclaimed conservative party was in control of the government when we first started spiraling into this rescission?
---
Bill Maher: "The Republicans always run on the idea that government isn't very effective. Well, not the way you do it. Well, not the way you do it. But it can be effective"
aacchhiilllleess 1 year ago
@aacchhiilllleess The Democrats were in control of both the House and Senate since 2006 - thanks for allowing further clarification!
weneedmccain 1 year ago
Again, why do you state 'beliefs' that only liberals uphold? I could care less about the debates between libs and cons...you're both twits - but to state your conservative beliefs and presume your party supports them (literally) is madness.
And you keep providing examples of success by showing liberal activists like Brad Pitt, etc.
And that is why I am not a Conservative: you are without basis.
milackk7 1 year ago
@milackk7 Brad Pitt may be a liberal, but his actions after Katrina were purely private and not governmental. Bringing up Pitt's ideology means nothing in my comparison.
The Republican party does not necessarily support conservatism, take a look at Bush or the last GOP Congress, nothing conservative about those boys.
weneedmccain 1 year ago
Wrong. Such as Liberalism descends from the word Liberalis. Conservatism descends from the word conservar. Conservar means to conserve or to save or reserve energy. It doesn't mean to oppose liberalism, oppose government spending, oppose regulations, oppose environment protection, bring the church into schools or our lives, oppose immigration, or to immediately support national defense. It means holding energy back on any particular matter to think wisely.
watch?v=M5QGkOGZubQ&feature=related
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
@TheRadicalRyushin On the contrary, to conserve means less government spending. Less debt. Less intrusion. More privatization. Being frugal, pragmatic - especially since government does not create or produce wealth, it simply spends wealth.
weneedmccain 1 year ago
Total Public Debt Outstanding
Bush Added : $6,367,911,114,075.87
toyotabedzrock 1 year ago
@toyotabedzrock Bush was NO conservative. Am I clear?
weneedmccain 1 year ago
Gday
something i like about your videos is that you state your reasons on why to vote republican. i often find it ridiculous the side people take either way. liberal or conservative. thats what i like about your videos even though i'm a liberal :)
declancf 1 year ago
@declancf Thanks, I try to be an independent thinker.
weneedmccain 1 year ago
G'day there hows it going?
i was hoping to tell you something. for years i have looked at peoples views on politics and wondered why they take that certain side. often i have found there reason very ridiculous whether there republican or democrat i want a valid reason.
i wanted to say although i am a liberal i do feel glad in your videos you state your reasons of why your a republican :)
declancf 1 year ago
@TheAmericanAnarchist Sure conservatives support free market principles. Most conservatives where really pissed over TARP. Part of the free market is alllowing business to fail so new ones can take their place.
weneedmccain 1 year ago
@TheAmericanAnarchist On the contrary, warfare is NOT a conservative ideal. Yes we believe in a strong military for DEFENSE, however, we are against big government while we believe strong law enforcement is good for society provided our freedoms and liberties are not intruded upon.
weneedmccain 1 year ago
Introduced by McCain: S.3081, a bill that would authorize the federal government to detain American citizens indefinitely without trial.
That's conservatism, neoconservatism.
character654 1 year ago
@character654 No that's McCain. That bill has NOTHING to do with conservatism. One of the main ingredients of conservatism is LESS government, LESS intrustion and more freedom. That bill flies in the face of conservatism.
weneedmccain 1 year ago
@weneedmccain We need McCain though - good conservative Republican.
Ron Paul - TRUE conservative.
I don't see my comment anywhere, where did it go?
character654 1 year ago
@character654 I agree with you wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, youtube does not allow you to change your name once it's made. This was from the 2008 election. I figured "weenee McCain was a hnd sight better than Obama. So I'm stuck with it. I like Ron Paul a lot!
weneedmccain 1 year ago
I am a proud Constitutional Conservative!
UnitedWeStand90 1 year ago
@UnitedWeStand90 I'm proud of you too!
weneedmccain 1 year ago
A few issues with this radical conservative idea are that small governments do not necessarily allow for full protection of constitutional rights, they hinder large scale initiatives. The idea of welfare which you promoted as Liberal is that of a safety net, this is a common modern view of welfare, but it is not the only form, positive welfare is the provision of opportunities for people to “help themselves”. The idea government would combine the two. And by the way, I am not a Liberal.
yadsik 1 year ago
@yadsik I agree. but government has failed welfare considerably. There has been such waste, abuse and fraud in every government program. That's why the private sector is FAR better at meeting the needs of Americans than the government ever will be.
The Constitution is what limits government. No where does theConstitution mandate large scale initiatiaves except national security and maintaining a strong defense.
weneedmccain 1 year ago
@weneedmccain "That's why the private sector is FAR better at meeting the needs of Americans than the government ever will be."
.
The private sector inevitably shuts out many who cannot afford to pay. With a government system you can tax the wealthy who can afford to contribute, thus allowing for access from the lower economic strata. The private sector cannot be effectively monitored to avoid waste, abuse and fraud, but in a government system "appropriate checks and balances" solve this.
yadsik 1 year ago
@yadsik What???? Government has a system of checks and balances? Let's see, Medicare - bankrupt, Medicaid - bankrupt, social Security - bankrupt. What checks and balances? The federal government can't even stay within the boundaries of the Constitution - they're mandate! Long before the government got involved, communities, towns and cities took care of their own folks.
Private business is based on performance. If it does a good job, it prospers, if it doesn't do a good job it fails.
weneedmccain 1 year ago
@weneedmccain "Medicare - bankrupt, Medicaid - bankrupt, social Security - bankrupt."
.
Not currently. We can, however, restructure these systems without cutting their benefits and increasing tax burdens on those who cannot afford it. A total radical shift to privatization, on the other hand, would attempt to achieve maximum possible profit, which implies meeting customer demand on the largest possible scale - as opposed to providing best serves according to government criteria.
continued...
yadsik 1 year ago
continued...
Where control of an industry is mediated by a capitalist government, is under-funded and preyed upon by corporations, it will decline. The solution is not to privatize, but to maximize possible funds in a public system. Where there is a private system, hospitals would attempt to "ATTRACT" patients, creating pseudo-illnesses like you see in infomercials, and can turn away anyone who cannot be cured for PROFIT. And let them die. But so long as they make a profit, they are satisfied.
yadsik 1 year ago
@yadsik Furthermore, why should the wealthy be penalized? Why should success be penalized? You can go after any money, but eventually, inevitably, it all rolls down hill unto the middle classs. Tax gasoline, and watch our product costs soar. Tax energy, and watch our energy bills skyrocket. Tax health care and watch our costs soar.
Trickle down is always applied for the good or not. Tax a corporation and they'll increase the cost to buy their product. Who pays? We do.
weneedmccain 1 year ago
yadsik 1 year ago
@yadsik Are you kidding me? Look what politicians have done with public education, medicaid, medicare, welfare, social security - THEY'RE ALL BANKRUPT!
Understand, government does not create wealth - EVER. It spends wealth.
Making a profit is not a bad thing. It is the greatest stimulus out there. I mean you're spouting marxism here. Oh that worked real well huh.
weneedmccain 1 year ago
@weneedmccain "Tax a corporation and they'll increase the cost to buy their product. Who pays? We do."
.
The rate of profit inevitably falls. Just TRY to escape a crisis, make everything privatized and it will only occur faster!
The only solution is Socialism.
yadsik 1 year ago
@yadsik And that's exactly what they do - or they move overseas. The problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money.
That's happened in Illinois, California and New York. All the big cities are millions in debt. And then the good States have to bail out the bad States. Those States are very liberal, lots of liberal,socialistic polices.
Every big union, socialistic, anti-business State is slowly dying. That's what socialism does.
weneedmccain 1 year ago
@weneedmccain "liberal,socialistic polices" is an oxymoron. Liberalism is very much a contradiction to socialism. I am against any and every form of liberalism.
I do not support American trade unions, they are mostly corrupt and Mafia like. Honestly, I don't support any socialists in the United States either, I think it is contrary to Socialism to promote the raising of wages in the first world where it would cause an inverse fall in the third.
You DO have a misunderstanding of Socialism.
yadsik 1 year ago
conservatives did not want independence from king george.liberal rebels fought and won democracy for you and i.liberal got child labor laws ,womens right to vote,intergrated the military and schools, just what have conservatives done to nurture public good in the usa.give corporations person hood??
stealthgerm 1 year ago
@stealthgerm Wow, are you spinning nicely. Our Founding Fathers were liberals, but the definition has changed 180 degrees since the 1700's. Go ahead, look it up, that definition is now called conservatism.
Also, it was Republicans who first authored the Bill of Rights. Abraham Lincoln being our first Republican.
What have democrats done? For women? For blacks? For schools?
I rest my case.
weneedmccain 1 year ago
Our government in Denmark has completely destroyed conservatism in small towns where I live. We live about 100 people close to eachother but nobody really cares about anyone. In fact, I hardly know anyone but a few families.
eric5335 1 year ago
soooo, this guy just want nno government, huh? What is a society without the government to behold it? I think you, sir, are also a little homophobic. Uphold the family values? I am personally gay and family values iINCLUD GAY MARRIAGE!
pianoplayer95 1 year ago
@pianoplayer95 On the contrary, I am NOT a libertarian. Family values are based upon the best conditions for raising children. A gay marriage cannot produce offspring in and of itself. Furher, a male and female provide a good balance for children. That balance is certainly upset with two same sexes as parents. So in my view, gay marriage and family values is an oxymoron.
You are certainly hetero-biased.
weneedmccain 1 year ago
By your definition of conservatism, there are no conservatives in government!
DSD1v57BG32 1 year ago
@DSD1v57BG32 You are correct, very few. Ron Paul, Michelle Bachman are fine examples.
weneedmccain 1 year ago
@weneedmccain
I agree on ron paul, but i am from Minnesota and Michelle bachmaann is just one big lair, she just says those things to get elected, that district has always been republican held, she says stuff but never does them, i've seen her voting record, ron paul is a good man that i can agree with in many issues, but Michelle is diffidently not.
DSD1v57BG32 1 year ago
This is ridiculous. Totally bias. And btw, if conservatives care so much about civil liberties, why do they continually try and remove the First Amendment, for example?
seany505 1 year ago
@seany505 We enjoy the first amendment very much thank you. The Tea Party groups are having a hayday by properly exercising their first amendment rights thank you very much!
weneedmccain 1 year ago
@weneedmccain Palin killed the Tea Party movement. Now it's run by a bunch of neocons who give lip service to the constitution yet support people like McCain (you remember S.3081). If someone doesn't support the good neocon of the day, he is silenced and removed for peaceably exercising his first amendment rights contrary to the Republican party line (comment pending approval). Ron Paul started the movement, now he doesn't even get an invite to attend anymore. R.I.P Tea Party.
character654 1 year ago
@character654 Judging by the many elections in America I would disagree with you. The Tea Party folks are alive and well. Ron Paul is still a patriot in my book, and I'm sure many Tea party folks as well.
Forget about McCain, he's history. He's either going to have to get on the train, or it will run him over. GO RON PAUL! He will develop a Constitutional Conservative Coalition in the House.
weneedmccain 1 year ago
@weneedmccain The Tea Party in its current form is merely a Neocon love fest (after Palin hijacked it). Its original intent is dead. they are back to Republicans good, Democrats bad. If McCain were to get the nomination this coming election the Tea Partiers would be whole heartedly backing him and ignoring good people like Chuck Baldwin.
character654 1 year ago
@character654 I would disagree. The Tea Party has been very successful in rooting out many progressive/moderate/liberal Republicans and replacing them with folks who will honor the Constitution and put the federal government on a permanent diet.
There's no way McCain could get past the Tea Party folks. I'll bet he's seen his last term in the Senate as well. Chuck Baldwin is a good man!
weneedmccain 1 year ago
@weneedmccain I would disagree that the current Tea Parties "success in rooting out any Republican, let alone the neocons such as their poster girl Sarah Palin. Too many of these people go by what their candidate SAYS ignoring what they DO.
I could make a list miles long of Tea Party supported candidates that either have no clue what the Constitution is or take the George W. Bush position that it is just a "G-- D----- piece of paper!"
character654 1 year ago
@character654 I know MANY tea party candidates, and every single one of them are in firm support of holding to the letter of the Constitution. That's a vital interest among Tea Party folks. The Constitution has been given nothing but lip service for decades by our elected officials. The Constitution is one of the main tenets of the Tea party groups.
weneedmccain 1 year ago
@weneedmccain The Constitution says that Congress has the responsibility to coin the nations money, NOT a private bank. That one thing is something that 90% of (Tea Party supported) so called conservative Republicans completely ignore, yet the problems this country faces as a result of the Fed are immense.
In Ron Paul's Tea Party ending the unconstitutional Fed was high on the list.
In Palin's version, getting more Republicans elected is the main focus.
character654 1 year ago
@character654 I have yet to be invovled in a Tea Party rally where I didn't see someone holding up a sign that read - end the Fed. I agree wholeheartedly with you and Ron Paul on this issue.
I don't know if Palin has addressed this issue. The reason people like Palin is she has bucked the Republican establishment many times in favor of a conservative candidate. How conservative? How Constitutionally prepared? Who knows, there's a hundred shades of pale. But they all beat the status quo
weneedmccain 1 year ago
FIX the GOP by throwing OUT NeoCon & Statist Progressives!
STOP Empire Building & Foreign Intervention with 650+ US military bases OCCUPYING over 135 nations PRODUCING hatred & jihad RESISTANCE!
Trade, NOT bribes/bombs Manipulation OR Isolationism!
STOP Socialist Redistributionist SLAVERY, Fascist Crony Corporatism & Illegal Immigration!
DEMAND Constitutionally limited Gov't, Individual Liberty & Responsibility, Sound Money, FREE competition between FREE States & FREE people.
yakyakyak69 1 year ago
@yakyakyak69 I agree!
weneedmccain 1 year ago
What about denying climate change, support for creationism etc?
ajuk1 1 year ago
@ajuk1 Denying climate change? Are you suggesting those who don't buy into global warming are in denial? I think you're all in denial. Scientists fudging numbers to make themselves politically correct? The earth has been cooling since 1998. Predicted by some scientists, and scorned by those looking to enrich themselves with government grants. Global warming is nothing more than Y2K on steroids.
weneedmccain 1 year ago 2
You state: "The government has never been effective at running anything." Then you claim we need a strong defense. The government runs the defense. Does that mean defense is not effective? If it is ineffective, why would you call for more of it?
Further you state, "Many homes have not been repaired." You then point to private action as successfully repairing homes. Well, aren't some of the non repaired homes owned by private individuals? If so, why hasn't the private action worked?
BraskySTU 1 year ago
@BraskySTU It means as I sfated, there's great inefficiency. It's the men and women who make our military the best in the world. Still, there's great waste.
Many private homes have not been repaired because the government red tape. While the private sector rolled up their sleeves and wham, new homes.
If this was your attempt at spin, it doesn't work well, i suggest watching the video again and take notes this time.
weneedmccain 1 year ago
@weneedmccain It simply appears that your statements are logically contradictory.
It is almost without doubt that some of the non-repaired homes are owned by private individuals. If private action is as effective as you state, why are these homeowners not repairing their own property?
I am not claiming public action is any more effective than private action at repairing these homes, I am making no claim. I am simply asserting that your arguments appear to be logically contradictory.
BraskySTU 1 year ago
@BraskySTU They are ALL private homes! My point is the government system designed to rebuild the community is so frought with red tape and bogged down by many many hoops that nothing is getting done. Meanwhile, the private sector, Habitat for Humanity, Brad Pitt and others, on their own initiative jumped in and quickly tore down the old in place of the new.
Which entity was quickest in rebuilding the community? It's a no brainer!
weneedmccain 1 year ago
Yet, why do folks like Sarah Palin wave the "conservatism" banner. You can't have it both ways. A conservative politician is oxymoron. Or, perhaps more correctly, an ox on a moronic quest.
MrChappy39 1 year ago
@MrChappy39 I would disagree. Palin is a real conservative. She demonstrated that as Governor of Alaska. She stuck to her principles and uprooted corruption even in her own party. She served the people of Alaska well.
So I don't think it's impossible to be a conservative and a politician. Nevertheless, I agree it's hard. Look at Denny Hastert, went into Congress a lowly high school wrestling coach, and came out a multi-millionare.
weneedmccain 1 year ago
The spirit of conservativism is libertareanism (Ronald Reagan)
fleskhjertafan93 1 year ago
@fleskhjertafan93 I partially agree, although Reagan wasn't a full blown libertarian.
weneedmccain 1 year ago
@weneedmccain Reagan was one of the most capitalistic presidents. And I personally think he did a lot to uphold the constitution.
eric5335 1 year ago
In your narration you said "We cant be bought, we cant be bribed" Really?
That is absolutely not True!!!!!
Look up Mel Sembler and GW Bush, then lookup what happened after GW Bush was elected...
Appauling....our Democracy should not be for sale to anyone!!! Yet it is!!!
Now that the Supreme court has opened the floodgates to corporations funding candidates..Democracy is doomed!
The only solution is for we the people to perform a "Control-Alt-Delete" on Washington D.C.!
OperationTailGunner 2 years ago
You are in error. You think Bush was a conservative? He bloated government more than Clinton! Just because someone has an R after their name does not make them a conservative.
I'm referring to TRUE conservatives. Look how much money Bush spent with no child left behind!
I agree our democracy should not be up for sale. I believe what Obama is doing with elected officials is bribery, plain and simple.
And I agree, Cntl - Alt - Delete my friend!
weneedmccain 2 years ago
We the people are considered as mere sheep to those who rule the roost(lobbyists, influence peddlers etc) Its all just a big joke to them..and the joke is at our expense. They continue to keep us in the dark just enough to use us all again for the next election cycle...Its time to BREAK THE CYCLE! No more Usary, Monetary, Political or otherwise!!!
One often quoted definition of Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results...indeed!
OperationTailGunner 2 years ago
Ignorance is a politicians greatest ally. We see this over and over again. I live in Illinois and it's par for the course.
Example: Andy McKenna ran for governor, in his first ad, he claimed to be the only real outsider. Truth: As chairman of the IRP for 5 years he was the biggest insider of all the candidates.
But, I knew folks I had to convince that all was not as it seemed. They buy into the propaganda.
I agree with you wholeheartedly!
weneedmccain 2 years ago
@OperationTailGunner It's true. We are sheep. And like sheep we are detined for slaughter. There is nothing new under the sun. To change government/s means we have to change ourselves first. If we only point out the "other" person or entities faults we fail - miserably. Government is the reflection of the people and truely the representation of the people.
MrChappy39 1 year ago
Bush was merely masquerading as a Conservative, as a Christian as an American etc....G.W. Bush fits the text book definition of a political hack...a con artist...a sock puppet.
If his dad was not HW Bush, he would be nothing in this world today....too bad!
OperationTailGunner 2 years ago
Could you point out a "true conservative" because I've never seen a politician that fits the description most conservatives provide. Maybe Ron Paul, but he's more libertarian.
yellowkrux 2 years ago
Fred Thompson comes to mind. Huckabee has too many taints of "compassionate" conservatism of the Bush brand. Sarah Palin would fall under a real conservative as well. McCain would have been Bush II the sequel, Obama got that one right.
Ron Paul certainly has some libertarian leanings but he's also 90% conservative.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
You and everyone else are 100% wrong in always saying this is a democracy! Well it may be now, but is supposed to be a Republic. Look into it and compare the two. In a democracy the government has the power to take away individual rights, and in a Republic they CAN NOT!
cenochs 1 year ago
You are correct.
weneedmccain 1 year ago
@OperationTailGunner I cannot disagree, although there are a few good folks in Congress, Ron Paul and Michelle Bachman are two of them who continue to hold up the Constitution as a framework for all legislation.
weneedmccain 1 year ago
I now know that I don't belong in this world. My conservative principles have isolated me from the world, and now, I am left facing scrutiny every day from my friends, peers, etc. It's hard to live in this world, but yet I trek on in spite of them. They can't take my conservative principles from me.
ovensleeper 2 years ago
The only ideology that has actually changed in definition through the history is conservatism. They were defenders of monarchism when they started off and now they are a bit more democratic.But the standard definition of conservatism is still high value of the church, state and family. They also dislike change and they believe in a strong hierchy.
But I guess you're not a real conservativ (I hope). You are more of a neo-conservative, which is a mix between liberalism and conservatism.
oRReOP 2 years ago
See now this is really semantics. The conservatives of today were just like the liberals 200 years ago. And the liberals of today are really progressive socialists, so the terms have morphed 180 degrees.
Nevertheless, you are correct in asserting what the definition of liberal used to be, and may still be defined as that, nevertheless, if you take a look at who the people are calling themselves liberals today, it's a far cry from your definition.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
Like I just said, liberalism hasn't changed. Just because you call yourself a liberal, doesn't mean you ARE a liberal. It's the definition that counts. If a someone calls himself a liberal, but at the same time doesn't fit the description of one, then he obviously isn't a liberal.
And based on the definition of conservatism, then you don't really seem to be a conservative. You're more of a neo-conservative, which is a mix between liberalism and conservatism.
oRReOP 2 years ago
Liberalism and conservatism were both created during the french revolution. Liberalism overthrew the tyrant king and executed all the nobles. Conservatism was created as a reaction againts the violence of the liberals. The Conservatists were againts the revolution and all for the tyranny and dictatorship of the french king. Liberals wanted freedom, while conservatists wanted dictatorship and unequality.
Conservatism has since its birth stood againts change, and often positive change.
oRReOP 2 years ago
That's not entirely true. Conservatives stand for common sense, what works, and has worked in the past.
So we come against socialistic ideas or the growth of government because frankly government is not designed to be big. Our framers made a negative constitution to prevent government from getting too big.
Liberalism back in the French Revolution is very close to today's conservatism, while liberalism today looks a lot more like progressivism.
My how things change.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
Liberalism hasn't changed one bit. The definition of liberalism is still free market, individualism and small goverment. You can read it in any dictionary. And those who claim to be liberals and at the same time believe in the things you are saying, then they aren't liberals. They might be social liberals but they are definetly not liberals.
oRReOP 2 years ago
They're actually more progressive socialists. Obama calls himself a liberal but look what he's doing to the free market, individualism and growing government by leaps and bounds.
I'm sorry, but the definition has been changed by those who profess to be liberals.
Nevertheless, your standard definition of what a liberal used to be is correct.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
What you speak of sounds more like liberalism in a way. Well, more like a mix between liberalism and conservatism. Conservatism is about putting the church, the state and the family first. They believe in keeping traditional values and they dislike radical change. Liberalism=individualism, small goverment and free market. But I guess neo-conservatism is more like liberalism mixed with conservatism. Liberalism+conservatism=neo-conservatism.
oRReOP 2 years ago
I would disagree. Conservatism and libertarianism YES. But liberalism is anything but small government.
Liberals believe in BIG government and are anti-corporation. They believe in the re-distribution of wealth and providing massive entitlements that go far beyond the scope of the Constitution. That pesky document that holds our government at bay.
Yes, most conservatives place high value on family and community because that has worked so well for so many years.
No dependency!
weneedmccain 2 years ago
2bpilot is correct. History has proven that Ronald Reagan was one of America's greatest Presidents. I think the greatest in the 20th Century.
As much as they tried to tear him down, his record and accomplishments restored America. I just wish he had had a Republican Congress to control spending. (Not that all GOP run Congress's has been fiscally responsible, certainly not the last GOP Congress.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
You had 1.5 minutes of acceptable (not necessarily correct) and reasonable analysis, but for whatever reason the whole things gets propagandistic, and outside of the fundamental construct of what constitutes conservatism. The term is an extremely important one, and should be studied and understood as a political philosophy. And if there is anything that gives the lack of understanding away, is the very use of the term 'liberal'. Liberalism is also a political philosophy which should be known.
dbohemian1 2 years ago 2
Liberals and conservatives both have truth and falsehood between them.
PersianPaladin 2 years ago
History is on the side of conservatives every time. As far as what works and what didn't.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
theliberalparis 2 years ago
Really? Incompatable with prosperity. And under what rock do you assume that this nation became the most prosperous nation on earth? Mmmmmm
weneedmccain 2 years ago
This guy should be my politics teacher - come to the UK
ExNausea 2 years ago
McCain is not a true conservative, Ron Paul is as lots of people here have been saying. The mainstream RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) are NOT true conservatives.
DystopianUtopia 2 years ago
I agree with you 100% McCain would have been another "compassionate" conservative like Bush.
However, with the viral video, DEAR MR. OBAMA on this page, I'm stuck with the name. I went with McCain in the general only because he was the only one who could defeat Obama.
We need a lot more Ron Paul's in Congress.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
"falling overboard on a ship he would throw a life vest and teach them how to swim" that's not connected to conservative values that's called morality!
REPUBELICAN 2 years ago
Really? Then why do we have people who have been on welfare to the 3rd and 4th generation? They are barely keeping their head above water? Has anyone taught them or trained them? Has anyone help them become self-sufficient? Perhaps even be prosperous?
No, they are still in the water with a lifevest on. Oh those compassionate Democrats.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
Conservatism is clearly a failed system. Granted, It may work on a very small level, however, on a large scale it is impossible. That's part of the reason that Ronald Reagan ran up a huge defeciet
RMPalm2000 2 years ago
History says you're wrong!
Look at the current States run by liberals.
California, Bankrupt, Illinois & New York close behind. Now look at the States run by Conservatives, they have surpluses.
Reagan did not run up the huge deficit, it was Democrats who controlled Congress and refused to curb spending. Reagan got us out of Stagflation and the misery index of Carter. He did that by cutting taxes, but there was no curb on spending.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
@weneedmccain
Yeah, and also Reagomics destory many minotries.
CloudsofBliss 2 years ago
You make a statement like that and back it up with nothing? Care to explain your comment CloudsoBliss?
weneedmccain 2 years ago
@weneedmccain
Regan's might help high middle class whites, but he didn't help blacks, including the poor.
During the drug war, there are many false accustions of blacks.
He ingore AIDS. (blacks were number one race for AIDS)
Why the heck we went crazy during the late 80's and early 90's?
H.W. Bush didn't get his second term because he didn't handle this issues.
CloudsofBliss 2 years ago
Reagan pulled us out of the misery index and stagflation. What does that mean, JOBS were created. That means poor people can get a job and stop being poor!
I have no idea what you're talking about over the drug war, that was mainly stopping drugs from entering the country.
AIDS? They had just discovered AIDS, and you're wrong, homosexuals were the ones hit hardest.
HW didn't get elected because he went back on a promise to not raise taxes - but I agree, he did not handle issues well
weneedmccain 2 years ago
Sir, you remind me of the actor Jeff Daniels. =-]
Yoshiling 2 years ago
Yes, I've been told that.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
Regardless of what Conservatism really is, all the American people see it as is the party that won't even try to be diplomatic and bi-partisan, who will stop at nothing to win over voters with tactics like fear mongering and fact bending.
You've even started claiming to be on the same side as Al-Qaeda JUST because you don't agree with the direction the country is going in. Pure hypocrisy.
You ask the American people "what is happening to this country?". I ask you, what has happened to politics?
treeunit212 2 years ago
It's not hypocrisy! I'm against the Republicans that trashed the constitution just as I am the Obama administration.
I want REAL conservatives in Washington that will uphold the Constitution, not the RINO's that give it lip service.
I don't like the fear mongering either - on both sides.
And I agree with you, what has happened to politics? Are there no stand up people anymore? Are they all corrupt?
I've slammed the Illinois Republican Party many times.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
As am I.
RonPaulRevolution my friend.
treeunit212 2 years ago
Ron Paul is the very best argument for cloning. We need a lot more people like him in Congress.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
Agreed. I would have rather had him than Obama, hands down.
treeunit212 2 years ago
France.
Italy.
Germany.
^the results of "Ideology".
Small towns do not represent the entire country. Why do you think big cities need government aid?
treeunit212 2 years ago
Where there are more government programs there's more money, which creates more opportunity for fraud and waste.
Look at the small town banks, they're fine. They maintained their lending practices. Only the major banks, national banks were seriously hit.
Big cities haul in a lot more revenue than small towns. Chicago has the highest sales tax in the nation, plus super high property tax, yet Chicago is in serious debt.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
True enough, but that fraud and waste is because of shitty regulation.
Small towns do fine because they are just that, SMALL TOWNS. The bigger, the more complex, and thus a more complex system is required.
The country is too large for every city to be reliant on itself. This isn't ancient Rome anymore.
treeunit212 2 years ago
You are correct, but those making those regulations, Democrats & Republicans too, are using tax dollars to feed off the public trough. In short, they don't really care about the poor and needy, it's just an excuse to soak up more of our taxes.
Every city, could function very well, and be prosperous if they lived within their means, cut out waste and fraud and adopted many small town ideologies.
To many at the tax trough, it's a feeding frenzy.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
So we should just give up? Stop working toward that future of no wasteful spending, while providing everything a citizen needs to succeed at life, regardless of how much money they have?
This is the 21st century. It's time to get serious about our future. Conservatism is a thing of the Egyptians and Romans, and what happened to them again?
Time for a society that will work.
treeunit212 2 years ago
Oh no, I'm all for helping the poor help themselves, but there's not a liberal program out there that does that.
All welfare has done is keep low income people at a low income, it's like throwing them a life preserver and then leaving them there.
Conservatism is about teaching them to swim so they can save someone else.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
Poor (adj): Lacking material possessions, such as money, the single thing that you must have in this Capitalist society in order to go to college, start a business, etc.
I do kind of agree with you onwelfare, but the claim that there isn't a single "Liberal" program that helps the poor is like saying there isn't a single AIG Board Director that doesn't love taxpayer bailouts.
Funny how rich conservatives have to borrow from the poor in order to keep that top 1% of american wealth safe from them.
treeunit212 2 years ago
You'll notice the vast majority of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG were at some point Democratic appointees of Bill Clinton's. Some of them are Obama's appointees now. These folks are NOT conservatives.
In an idealic society, liberalism would flourish, but this is far from an idealic society.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
weneedmccain: I think you should start with what you said at 2:26. Much of the beginning you are describing the results of a conservative approach: family, small government, individual responsibility. You should start by describing the approach of a conservative: when making a decision, a person (including a government official) should focus on the values, traditions and principles that have sustained us as a nation. Then, reasoning from there, you get results of strong family, ind. resp, etc
Robfenix 2 years ago
Good point, and you are correct, even the most liberal amongst us, are fiscally conservative with their own money.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
what happens if I'm a orphan? I guess I don't fit into the "family structure"
Kylestyle05 2 years ago
It's a sad day in America when hopeleness and despair are seen as a demad to be filled with tools of destruction like alcohol, weapons and poor food choices in abundance. It's so easy to just say they're lazy isn't it. Look up Fredrick Nietzsche' "Will To Power" concept to better understand how unregulated free market will never work
caviwavi 2 years ago
You want the governmetn to regulate and dictate in everyone's lives, that's not freedom.
Yes hopelessness and despair are the hallmark signatures of the Democratic lefts programs over the last 3 decades.
The unregulated free market worked very well for 200 years, making America the most prosperous nation on earth. Yeah, that didn't go well.
Instead of just giving the poor a rubber life boat to float in, the better way is to teach them to swim so they can save others.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
I think you need to investigate Televisons low level hypsosis capabilities to better understand your biased views. When you watch news media your critical thinking and analysis turn off and is replaced by the emotional response. Which explains hatred for the opposite side. The truth is we just trust our leaders tell us the truth. We don't really know for sure if any of the facts you said are true. We just trust that they're true. Whoever has the loudest voice and the most money wins.
caviwavi 2 years ago
This has nothing to do with the media. I never met a liberal who wasn't a fiscal conservative with his own money. So why shouldn't our taxes be treated as such?
Go ahead and spend like Congress and see where you are two years from now. This is just everyday life experience.
I don't trust ANY of them, well, mostly any of them on both sides of the isle. Bush and the GOP spent like Dems for 8 years!
My facts are based more on my own experiences and those around me through the 80's.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
Thank you for describing this for everyone. This just reinforces the fact that I'm a conservative. People need to open their eyes and realize we need to change this country's direction to one of a conservative path. We need the Constitution back!
schoedan 2 years ago
spoken like a true conservative, lol
iamnraandivote 2 years ago
This guy sounds like Jonathan Archer from "Star Trek: Enterprise".
VanDoodah 2 years ago
Awesome video! Could not of said it any better myself. It just speaks words that really make you think about whats going on today? Where are we? thank you very the great video!
brownfox27 2 years ago
Except for the fact a year before scientists said new orleans will happan because of a design flaw. No conservatist tried to protect their family from the impending disaster nor whould have been happy if the government did it for them so this brings up a paradox in this videos statement. You can't say civilians came and made homes in new orleans as a perfect example of no one went to build new storm management systems a year before. People doing needed things is historically bull unless forced.
saderworldz 2 years ago
Wait... if government is "terrible at everything," then why do you believe in a "strong military."
Robfenix 2 years ago
The military is run by millions of people...not the retards in washington(well obama...)...why ask stupid questions...
alanjsms 2 years ago
Read the Consistution.
cobaltman5 2 years ago
Liberals always use the "If you are pro life, why do you support war?" The thing is, their are evil people in the world, if Hitler was still alive, how many more people would have died. One death saved millions of lives. I tell these leftist that I'm pro justice, I'm for the judgment of the guilty and the protection of the innocent.
icemilitia 2 years ago
or how about "why do you believe in the death penalty?"
I can see the difference between an innocent child sleeping in its mother's wombs over a child molestor, rapist about to be put on death row.
UhDanny 2 years ago
Pro life is a reaction against the belief that some categories of human being can be viewed as "technically" human, yet stripped of their status as a "real" human, or a human "worthy" of rights.
Pro life (to me, anyway) means, if you are human, you automatically deserve rights. Nobody gets to appropriate to themselves the "right to choose" which humans live or die, which humans get rights and which are expendable.
There can be no category of being that is human yet has no right to life.
kitmarq 2 years ago
OOOOH I like that one, pro justice, I think we should stop saying pro life, and adopt wht you said. It makes a whole lot more sence.
samuils 2 years ago
Value life but go to war, makes perfect sense.
How exactly has Hollywood acted the family?
Saying it's the greatest nation in the world doesn't make it so. It still sucks, at least statistics say so.
Also, even notice how scientists are only 6% conservative?
And I doubt that analogy at the end is right.
Sounds like conservatism is all emotional.
Care to explain?
HomoCyborgZombie 2 years ago
Hey, Democrats voted overwhelmingly to go to Iraq or did you forget that?
The Dems won Congress in 2006 promising to end the war, what happened? Was it all rhetoric?
Obama won the Presidency promising to bring home the troops. What happened?
Could it be that they used our military as pawns for political power only?
MMMmmm, so they used our military while lying openly to the American public. Oh yeah, great public servants they are.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
I agree with this video and its summary of Conservatism....but I don't understand why this guy was pushing for McCain. Senator McCain is not a conservative. We need representatives that do not just call themselves conservative or stand behind a party with claims of conservatism. McCain and many like him are no more conservative because they are in the Republican Party, than I am a car if I stand in the garage. If you want a conservative, do your homework and find one. Ron Paul for starters.
mayt7 2 years ago
I agree wholeheartedly with you. Yes McCain would have been another "compassionate" conservative, which really means non-fiscal conservative.
But consider the end result, we ended up with Obama who has already spent more in 5 months than Bush did in 8 years.
I like Ron Paul but he was wrong on the troop withdrawal, but right to vote against the Iraq war.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
I agree, we should have never gone into Iraq in the first place. But, we broke it, we need to fix it and a controlled withdraw strategy is best.
Even though Obama has launched us toward socialism, fascism (big government), whatever you want to call it.
McCain and others like him have been dragging us in the same direction inch by inch without most of us knowing.
I think it is important in this revived conservative movement to properly define who should represent us going forward..
mayt7 2 years ago
I absolutely agree with you.
Watch my video on Education Pensions, it's happening in every State, but big time in Illinois. It's a perfect example of socialism gone awry.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
Absolutely! It'll be a pleasure and i'm looking forward to it. In these times, It's hard to find something on the internet that can be safely watched and listened to, let a teaching tool. I'm so glad that I got to listen to your video. Man you can't imagine how hard it is to be a conservative these days. Just look at the multitude of trash that's on this YouTube website, spewing their vitriol for anything that is remotely conservative or "NeoCon" as they put it. Thanks again for the invite sir!
hilariouskid 2 years ago
It is unfortunate that many in the Republican party have changed their conservative ways for some limelight and approval from the media. Neither was a good choice and many of these Republicans paid the price of being booted out of office. Rightfully so as they deserved it. We now have possibly one of the worse and the most inexperienced person leading our nation and it shows. Our economy was faltering and Obama decides to embark a mammoth spending spree, and blames Bush for any setbacks!
hilariouskid 2 years ago
Good post.
I'm about to begin producing a series called REAL REPUBLICAN. It will be youth oriented and will hopefully, in an entertaining fashion teach the youth about true conservatism and what it means to be a REAL REPUBLICAN.
Stay tuned!
weneedmccain 2 years ago
I'm a black and I have conservative views, I grew up in a family that voted always Democratic I myself did. Interesting, African Americans are small business owners like my grandfather, are conservative on social issues like gay marriage, abortion, immigration, and keeping more of what they own, very religous but you explain to me why blacks don't vote republican. It isn't that all blacks want handouts, welfare, and an easy life because that is a myth.
luvs2teach00 2 years ago
Blacks don't vote Republican because they've been fed a lie. The lie is Democrats care about blacks, when really the opposite is true.
All democrats care about is securing the black vote. And the Union vote, and the trial lawyers vote, and now the hispanic vote. They will say whatever they have to say and prop up the Jesse Jackson's of the world to push thier cause.
But the black population is wising up and hopefully hispanics who also have conservative social values.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
Democrats don't have to worry about the union vote. Reagan fired union air traffic controlers in the early 80's because he hated unions. Republicans want to keep you poor but suck retards back in by preaching family values and gay bashing. Most poor people are minorities, and with tax cuts to the rich, there is no incentive to vote republican for them. Go back to school. Trickle down economics doesn't work
caviwavi 2 years ago
He fired them because they violated their contract. Come on, at least present some facts.
Republicans want to keep you poor? Ask the poor today who they have voted for the last few decades, are they still poor?
Most poor people are minorities? That's not true at all! There are far more poor whites than poor minorities. What planet do you live on?
Trickle down is just a fact, and it does work. With cap and trade it will work to the negative as utility costs skyrocket.
You'll see
weneedmccain 2 years ago
Trickle down works on the notion that if a you give someone or a company extra money they are going to spend it. It doesn't work however if they save it for themselves. FACT! That's why it's inconclusive. You cannot pressume to know what poeple are going to do with money. Look at the Reagan years. The notion of massive company layoffs wasn't in our vocabulary yet. But company's had all that extra money right through tax cuts. Never underestimate the power of greed.
caviwavi 2 years ago
If you own a company that is prospering, you want it to prosper more, you have to hire more people. More people means more people paying taxes. That is trickle down.
On the contrary, employment and jobs boomed under Reagan.
Even with greed, those who want to make a lot of money, have to employ the people to make the goods, transport the goods, sell the goods.
Watch trickle down work when Cap and Trade hit the utility companies, it all rolls downhill.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
David Stockman. Office of managemnt and budget under Reagan. "Do you realize the greed that came to the forefront? The hogs were really feeding. The greed level, the level of oppurtunism, just got out of control. The asministation basic strategy was to match or exceed the Democrats, and we did." His words on the 1981 tax cuts
caviwavi 2 years ago
before I could comment on this comment, I would have to see the entire quote in context.
Nevertheless, Reagan wanted to severely limit spending on many fronts but the Democrats wouldn't do it.
That was Bush's problem cutting taxes are good, but Congress, yes the GOP Congress should have been trimming the fat instead of eating the fat.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
Tha miricle of the republican party is that is has tricked people into defending the rich. If i was rich i'd probably be a republican too. You should be able to have as much money as you can earn in my book. But lets' give a pathway for the poor to follow so they can have the opportunity to become well off if they work for it. But somehow we've got poor republicans? Isn't that an oxymoron. You know you have genuine cromagnanman when he's poor but still votes republican.
caviwavi 2 years ago
See, now you're listening to Democratic talking points. The Democrats have been purportedly helping the poor for decades, all they did was make them dependent on government and keep them in poverty, that's the miracle of the Democratic party, and these people keep voting for them.
We have third and fourth generations of welfare folks barely keeping their heads above water.
That's not the way.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
How are poor people supposed to learn to swim with liquor stores, gun shops, and fast food restaruants dispraportionally higher in low income areas. Nice job free market. You have third generation welfare folks because the wealthy have killed peoples' hope.
caviwavi 2 years ago
The free market fills a demand, that's how it works. If there's no demand, the market suffers. The free market, is and always has been consumer driven.
No, the Democrats have put their arms around the poor, told them, we're on your side, then give them $100 a week to live on.
Meanwhile, all the money designed to run these social"programs" is absorbed by those running the programs, with some going back into campaign coffers. That's how it works and why the poor are still poor.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
So you just gave all conservative views, now why in the world would you still vote domocrat? Oh btw pls dont vote republican either, VOTE FOR CONSERVATIVES
!!!
samuils 2 years ago
conservatism =