Conservatives for change

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by dukebound85, Oct 23, 2008.

  1. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #1
    this video is kinda how i see things as well. i consider myself a conservative in ideology but i really cant stand the direction mccain is going with palin there to boot

    there is a difference to voting strictly by your beliefs or what you honestly feel will result in a better america. as much as i am against liberal ideals, i do not see a mccain vote bettering this country. if it were some other republican nominee ahem *ron paul*... , i would think differently but i do not hold any trust in mccain and palin and i cant bring myself to side with them and their beliefs on many issues. additionally, i would be honestly frightened if palin were to be found in the posisition to be president. i dont even want to think about it

    in short, i am not against the republican party but rather against those that have been given the reigns to run it

    granted i dont agree with obama on many things but i do think he will result in a better country if you follow what im saying.

    here is the link,

    http://conservativesforchange.com/
     
  2. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
  3. BoyBach macrumors 68040

    BoyBach

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #3
    "Conservatives for Change", isn't that an oxymoron? :p
     
  4. Cleverboy macrumors 65816

    Cleverboy

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Pocket Universe, nth Dimensional Complex Manifold
    #4
    This is a very encouraging video. I'd have been OK with these people not even supporting Obama, personally. There is a way the conservative party could be much more persuasive to me and my family, and currently, they are NOT IT. Palin is not a bright future for the Republican party either. Bush talked a lot about "compassionate conservatism", but never measured up.

    I think there is a consistency (even if some here disagree with him) to Ron Paul's ideology and politics, that brands him authentically conservative, as opposed to the hodgepodge that most of the GOP candidates were this year. It was ridiculously embarrassing to see people like McCain snicker condescendingly at Paul, even while Ron Paul amassed an army of followers on the Internet that made a lot of people sit up and notice. They had a ready-made champion and standard bearer, and we never got a chance to see a real battle of consistent ideals. The battle would have been much more compelling, although Paul is a much less maleable political creature... which in this climate, would have engendered a STRONG reaction in either direction.

    ~ CB
     
  5. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #5
    Though I suspect you were merely being rhetorical - the answer is no.

    Not historically. Not now.

    It all depends on what is on the docket for change and (once-upon-a-time) perhaps the pace.
     
  6. Cleverboy macrumors 65816

    Cleverboy

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Pocket Universe, nth Dimensional Complex Manifold
    #6
    If you're someone who believes that government has gotten too big and that its time for a change in the RIGHT directions, then you'd be a "conservative for change" (the "right change"). If you're a conservative who believes that the wheels of government have been broken by the lack of cooperation amongst the parties and that bipartisan reform is needed to accomplish many of the social reforms that are in keeping with your ideology... then you're also be a "conservative for change".

    The FIRST type is represented by:
    http://www.rightchange.com/

    The SECOND is represented by:
    http://www.conservativesforchange.com/

    No party has a monopoly on their candidate being a "change agent".
    It all depends on where you're starting point is.

    Depends on how you look at it.

    ~ CB
     
  7. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #7
    Yep- the very meaning of conservative is "resistant to change". But I'll take what I can get. ;) Plus, Duke is cute. We're all stalking him, dontcha know. ;)

    So dukey- what "liberal values" are you against exactly? Equal marriage rights? Choice? Women's rights? Fair taxation? Health care reform?

    I don't see any of those as "liberal values", I see them as common sense.
     
  8. Sdashiki macrumors 68040

    Sdashiki

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Location:
    Behind the lens
    #8
    liberal/democrat means someone who is open to ideas and change.

    conservative/republican means someone who is closed minded and dislikes change.


    I dont understand why people are always saying things like "THAT LIBERAL MEDIA!!!!!"

    WTF?

    Isnt media SUPPOSED to be liberal?

    You know, like open to all opinions and not biased?


    Parallel observation:

    ProLife means everyone who is prochoice is wrong.
    ProChoice means anyone can be either ProLife or ProChoice.

    Gee I wonder why I dont like ProLife people?
     
  9. iShater macrumors 604

    iShater

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #9
    I have to check this video, because this is very encouraging. But I am at work. Agh!
     
  10. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #10
    To be fair, you're loading the choices.

    Conversely, I could say,

    Family Values? Prevention of Baby Murder? Anti-Reverse Discrimination? Economic Growth? Fiscal Frugality?

    It's all about perspective. We all view our own choices as common sense because of the ideologies we start with :D
     
  11. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #11
    I think you'll like it. Lots of conservatives talking about why Obama appeals to them more than McCain. They give all kinds of reasons, and all of them ring true.

    Nice site. Thanks for sharing, dukebound.
     
  12. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #12
    Perspective without knowledge is useless.

    "Family values" applies to all families, not just straight ones- even though they like to pretend gays don't have families.

    A fetus is not a baby. That's why it's called a fetus.

    Reverse discrimination is pretty rare, and not nearly as big a concern as actual discrimination. You'll have to prove that one to me.

    The economy grew just fine under the last Dem president.

    Bush was the worst spender we've ever had. No reason to think McCain won't do the same.

    The mistake many conservatives make is not taking the time to do research first.

    And Duke, none of this is a jab at you.
     
  13. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #13
    Yeah, but that's you placing your opinion on all of those issues. Some are based on fact, others are based on personal judgment. It was the illustration of a point (loaded questions). I agree with you on most of those issues, so I don't have actual legitimate points of contention :D
     
  14. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #14
    The only one that could be construed as opinion is my Pro-choice stance. The rest aren't opinions.
     
  15. geese macrumors 6502a

    geese

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Location:
    London, UK
    #15
    Conservatives for change? Are they really skint now that the economy has gone belly up?

    Its a bit undignified them begging on the internet. Whats wrong with a manky dog on a rope, a guitar and a begging bowl outside the bus station?
     
  16. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #16
    Ok, to play devil's advocate... who is to say the economy wouldn't have grown more under a GOP President at the time of Clinton? The growth could be more a consequence of the prosperity of the time (cheap gas etc.). So, yes, the economy grew, but is that to say it couldn't have been better? :p

    Personally, I agree with you, there tends to be a lack of research behind conservative ideals, or people feel obligated to vote for a GOP candidate because of religious beliefs even when the consequences aren't practical for their own lives.

    edit: I think the point to get is that conservatives are for change because they don't even hold to their own party values anymore. The paramount reason is that spending has ballooned at the hands of a "fiscal conservative."
     
  17. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #17
    I'd argue that that's your most fact-based stance. That's why the term "fetus" exists, and why we have legal and medical definitions of death.
     
  18. Agathon macrumors 6502a

    Agathon

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    #18
    Just because no-one ever doubted conservatives' hearts, doesn't mean that they have brains.

    Now, stop mocking the afflicted. ;)
     
  19. Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #19
    Agree, so there is room for hope in this world.

    Amen to all of the above, and well said.

    Cheers
     
  20. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #20
    Could'a, would'a, should'a aren't facts though, are they? Talk to me about facts. Suppositions are meaningless.
     
  21. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #21
    Which is why we can only fairly evaluate policies after implementation. One side says they can do it better, and blah blah blah ;)

    Really though, I told you my post was to make a point, which I'm afraid may have been lost. As for rebuttal, I'm not going to argue points I'm not convinced of :D
     
  22. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #22
    I know. :)

    Dukey come back!

    Seriously though dukebound- good thread and I'm glad you posted.
     
  23. Prof. macrumors 601

    Prof.

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago
  24. Anuba macrumors 68040

    Anuba

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    #24
    Right, but who's to say that any single economic policy is the best at any given time, in any given age? In the 1900's, Sweden adhered to a strict Keynesian social-democratic model and became the richest per capita country in the world. The Keynesian model led Sweden to a full recovery from the great depression after only 5 years, while the US took almost a decade longer to get back on its feet. Sweden remained ludicrously prosperous until the mid-1980's, when the same policy that once brought us to the top, pushed the economy down the crapper. It took a more Reaganomics-like approach in the late 90's to bring us back into the game again. In the US, Reaganomics were fantastic for the economy in the 1980's, but terrible now.

    The problem isn't this or that policy, but the fact that everyone's always looking for that ONE magic formula, and once they strike gold (often by mere chance), they cling to that formula for dear life, long after it stopped working. Personally I think the best result comes when you take a pragmatic and adaptive approach, and put dogmas and ideology in the back seat.
     
  25. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #25
    Well said. Right now there needs to be a focus shifting from manufactured goods to technology as the meat and potatoes of the economy. I find this good because Obama seems to be very technologically aware.
     

Share This Page