Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: Dennis Cook said:
Very good post Steve! i dont always agree that meeting in the middle is a good thing, if we would have done that through history, the world would be a lot different. Imagine if we met in the middle with Japan when they were attacking everything they could, or Hitler, or the British Govt? If we met in the middle with the British govt, the US would not be and we would still be a territory of theirs. Sometimes you have to fight for what you believe in and not compromise on your values. When you do compromise on your values, then your values are meaningless. Most of the politicians that meet in the middle, dont want to upset the applecart, and usually are republicans who should be democrats. My values are conservative, my morals are generally traditional, and predominately what this country was founded on and i'm not willing to give those up and will always fight for them and against those who are trying to take this country in another direction.
Dennis you are talking about some big events that we would consider changed the course of history....who knows what would have happened, how would things be different? Not to say we can't learn from them either. I can agree with your statement about fighting about what you believe in. But going back to the Revolutionary war it was mostly about getting taxed and having no representation, if the King would have agreed to representation maybe that war doesn't happen, I do think eventually like all British colonies we would have found independence.
But you talk about this country being founded on conservatism, I read a good opinion yesterday, when looking at the definition of conservatism, it means to stay as is, status quo, no change, if our founding fathers were so conservative, we would still have an European style of government, so the author said. His point is the founding fathers were more liberal then people want to believe.
But that is all big issue stuff.......I believe the problem is even the dang little things that both sides know need to be done but they can't find a compromise to getting it done....that is the problem. Look at the student loan deal, both sides agree it needs fixed but they can't agree with how to pay for it, the republicans want to pay for it with cuts from social programs, the democrats want to tax the highest wage earners. Quite honestly I don't like either option. How about instead of letting the interest rate double, maybe add a half or whole percentage point? What would that cost the individual student and what does it cost the country? If that get you close, then find a program to downsize and/or take away a tax credit for something.
My deal with what you are saying then, is half the people of this country are correct about something and the other half aren't (depending on the subject and the polls) so there is no compromising? That isn't going to help us, we have been doing it for well over 200 years, (I wouldn't say for 235 years because there have been a few years we haven't been compromising).
Mel
Mel, when i say this country was founded with conservative principles, i am talking about how Americans define conservatism today. Small govt., low taxes, limited regulation, free enterprise, less govt control of our lives. The defintion of conservatism hundreds of years ago and in most other countries is different, it follows more of todays liberal thinking. Thats why it gets a bad rap. The founding fathers didnt want to be controlled by the govt. They didnt want the govt to be able to just keep taxing them to death and taking what is rightfully theres. They believed in hard work and earning your keep, helping people when they couldn't help themselves, and hindering the ability of govt to take control of your life a little at a time. I guess your right in the sense that status quo is big to conservatives. Mainly with taxes. Why do we want to give the govt so much power that they never need to regulate themselves and they can just spend, spend, spend.....And when they run out of others peoples money, just take more of it. Its theft. Leave me alone, let me live my life and keep what I earn, and do the things govt is supposed to do with our tax dollars (military, law enforcement, infrastructure). i dont need the govt telling me that they can spend my social security money better than I can, they obviously cant. What gets me is that people put so much faith in the fact that the govt will take care of them, when they keep screwing everything up. Status quo, right now, would be limiting the damage that Obama is doing to this country. AMEN to that.
Im not the one saying half the country is wrong, the govt is saying everyone one is wrong. They are saying we cant be trusted to make our own decisions so they have to develop programs to provide our retirement, our health care, what kind of light bulbs we can buy, what kind of energy we have to use etc etc. They try to regulate us right down to our thermostats in our house. Give me a break.........from govt.
Im getting the bad rap about intolerance......well back in the day prayer was allowed in school......today it is not. Who is the intolerant ones? Who is trying to take god out of everything in this country? It isn't the conservatives. Who is not tolerant of using an incandenscent light bulb? That would be the libs. Who is intolerant of being able to keep more of what you earn? That would also be the libs. Who are the ones trying to cram green energy down our throats, when we have plenty of sources of energy? Again that would be the libs. So whose the party that thinks everyone is wrong, its the libs. Conservatives preach individual responsibility, so how can we think everyone is wrong? We believe in the potential everyone has, they just need a push to get there and not be so reliant on the govt.
if someone doesnt stand up against govt taking over everything, then eventually we will look just like every other predominately socialist country in this world. They are broke, they have a dependent culture, and did i say they are broke.