Tag Archives: conservative

Why conservative views are better

The title may sound a little brash, but if people are honest they’ll concede that they think their views are better.  Otherwise, why would they hold them?

So why are conservative views better?  They reflect a much better understanding of reality, specifically  human nature (e.g., original sin) and the Law of Unintended Consequences (things don’t happen in vacuums; if you change a law then people will react to that), common sense (why should someone hire you if you can’t help them succeed?) and more.

Just a few examples . . .

Abortion: Crushing and dismembering innocent yet unwanted human beings rarely solves problems.  Yes, it is unfortunate when unplanned pregnancies occur, but killing the unborn is wrong.

Liberals act as if conservatives are not compassionate towards women with crisis pregnancies, but go visit a Pregnancy Resource Center and see if it is funded, managed and staffed with conservatives or liberals.  Liberal “compassion” is to use murder to pretend to solve the problem.

The right to life is a true right.  Social justice begins in the womb.

Gun control: Liberals argue by anecdote that guns are bad and must be controlled.  Conservatives realize that while there will be exceptions, society at large is much better off with the option of being armed against criminals and bad governments.  Human nature is such that bad people and bad governments are less likely to act against potentially well-armed people.  Gun violence is greater where there are more restrictions.  I know from prison ministry that bad guys are similar to the rest of the population in many ways: They want maximum gain with minimum risk.  Why go where people are armed when there is somewhere they are unarmed?  It is foolish to think that disarming law-abiding citizens will improve crime rates.

Poverty: Conservatives want to help those who can’t help themselves, such as orphans and some widows.

Conservatives know that you get more of what you fund.  Give incentives for single mothers?  You get more single mothers.  Give incentives to illegal aliens?  You get more illegal aliens.

Anstudies show that by any measure — giving time, money or even blood donations — conservatives are more generous.  They just don’t lobby Caesar to “give” your money and count it as a good deed on their part.

Sex scandals: Both sides may have them, but Republicans generally kick their perpetrators to the curb (Mark Sanford is an exception, not the rule).  What about the Democrats?  Barney Frank had a male prostitution ring in his home.  Bill Clinton had many affairs, sex with an intern in a white house and strong accusations of rape.  If Monica hadn’t saved the dress he’d still be lying.  But he gets $100,000+ per speech and is still worshiped by countless Democrats.  Ted Kennedy (need I say more?).  The “Reverend” Jesse Jackson had adultery and used his organization’s funds to pay off a mistress.  The Democrats can’t bring themselves to kick out the San Diego mayor.  Anthony Weiner thinks people will overlook his continued bizarre behavior — and he may be right!  And on and on.

War: Neither side likes war.  Conservatives understand the simple truth of peace through strength.  Bullies don’t bully kids who are bigger or better armed.  It is pathetically naive to think you can live in a world without violence.

Advertisements

Facebook memes follow-up

I thought I’d post this comment and my response that resulted from the Facebook memes post.  Looks like I have another fan.

Your “logic” is irrevocobly flawed. I’m just curious, when was it that you “proved” your civil right to marry a woman? When was it that African Americans “proved” their civil right to freedom? When did they “prove” their civil right to equal treatment? And what did they do to prove it? As was the case with slavery, just because something is done a certain way for a long time, doesn’t make it the “correct” or “only” way. If YOUR religion prohibits YOU from accepting gay marriage, I completely respect that. I obviously do not agree with you, but I aknowledge your desire to adhere to your religious beliefs. With that said, YOUR religion has absolutely NOTHING to do with the running of our government; nor does it have any part in determining what is, and what isn’t a person’s civil rights. Our forefathers made a point to both protect our citizens rights to worship their chosen religion, AND protect our government from undue religious influence. Nowhere in our Constitution, is there found a definition for marriage. I am well aware what the “traditional” meaning is, as I am aware that gay couples can’t produce children, so please don’t feel the need to “inform” me on those two facts. “Traditional” doesn’t equate “the only way”, it simply means the most popular way. And obviously, many unions between a man and a woman do not produce children. So what truth outside the Bible do you believe you stand on? If the Bible doesn’t influence our judicial system, what do you propose as an argument in the Supreme Court, against it? Will you argue that gay people haven’t sucessfully proven their civil right to marry? Establishing a burden of proof does not apply to civil rights.

I would love to read your rebuttle, because I am honestly trying to understand your thought process. Sadly, I’m sure you will not allow this comment to be posted, because it rationally and coherently refutes your reasoning. I have found that Conservative bloggers tend to deny the comments that are based on facts, when the facts aren’t in their favor. I truly hope you aren’t as cowardly as the rest.

Regarding conservative blogs moderating you, please hold off on martyr status until you do some self-reflection. Your comment here was an extended straw-man argument about religious views. Ironically, your anti-religion bigotry and prejudices fit much better with the pictured meme than our view about real marriage. It is self-serving on your part to go to conservative blogs with your fallacious rants and then pre-emptively call them cowards for not wanting to discuss things with you. If I try to avoid an irrational crank at work I’m being wise, not cowardly.

If you want to gain some credibility here, please provide links to where you have made comments like this to theological liberals (read: fake Christians) who advocate for oxymoronic “same-sex marriage.” You may also want to consider how I didn’t make religious arguments, I made secular ones.

If YOUR religion prohibits YOU from accepting opposing gay marriage, I completely respect that. I obviously do not agree with you, but I aknowledge your desire to adhere to your religious beliefs. With that said, YOUR religion has absolutely NOTHING to do with the running of our government; nor does it have any part in determining what is, and what isn’t a person’s civil rights. Our forefathers made a point to both protect our citizens rights to worship their chosen religion, AND protect our government from undue religious influence. Nowhere in our Constitution, is there found a definition for marriage. . . .

You’ll note that I only had to change one word to turn your diatribe into one against the anti-biblical “Christians” who push for “same-sex marriage.” So unless you are a hypocrite, you’ll have plenty of examples to show me where you fight their un-Constitutional intrusion into the marriage debate. Or do you just play the religious-suppression card on those you disagree with?

You might also want to consider how the 1st Amendment protects religious speech and does not prohibit it. As with the Obama administration, you have it backwards. My religion teaches me that it is wrong to beat up atheists and steal their property. Using your logic I’d have to be silent on that in the public square or even vote the opposite, lest I “force” my religious views on atheists.

Now to a couple of your arguments:

I am well aware what the “traditional” meaning is, as I am aware that gay couples can’t produce children, so please don’t feel the need to “inform” me on those two facts. “Traditional” doesn’t equate “the only way”, it simply means the most popular way. And obviously, many unions between a man and a woman do not produce children. So what truth outside the Bible do you believe you stand on?

That’s a clever rhetorical trick you play there, and sadly enough, it works on many people. You concede my key point that by nature and design gay couples can’t produce children, but you simultaneously pretend that I haven’t made any secular arguments. Not so fast. Since we both agree on that fact, you should ask why government is involved in any personal relationships. The government does not regulate my love for my wife, nor does it need to. It is only involved because the obvious ideal, supported by countless studies and common sense, is that a child be raised by his mother and father, as well as the scientific fact that children are produced by unions of one man and one woman. Even Darwinists should see the merits of that.

And I didn’t use the term “traditional,” you inserted that. Words mean things, and throughout history the term marriage has meant the union of a man and a woman. Only recently have some dictionaries bowed to pressure and modified it. And your overly broad argument also justifies polygamy and incest and is already being used by pedophiles. After all, if you are changing the definition of marriage why do you get to pull up the drawbridge after you’ve made your preferred change? Why won’t you let others change the laws to suit their desires?

And obviously, many unions between a man and a woman do not produce children.

Agreed, but this doesn’t change the premise that by nature and design children are produced by a union of a male and a female and that only those unions can provide a mother and a father to a child.

Since you brought up the religion topic I thought I’d share a summary of what the one true God says about marriage and parenting:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
  • 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
  • 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
  • 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

Also see this secular case against “same-sex marriage” as well as these:

Problems with pro-gay theology  

Responding to Pro-Gay Theology     

Responding to same-sex marriage arguments

Facebook memes

A friend linked to a “Liberal and proud of it” Facebook page and I read some of their, uh, arguments.  I should note that many Conservative memes are pointless.  I think it is always worth asking if the joke would work on the other side if you just changed the names.  If so, I don’t click “like” or share it.  Just saying, “Obama is stupid,” or attacking his wife’s appearance is about as productive as the Left’s obsession with Sarah Palin.  We have endless facts about his record and beliefs to point to. Why dilute the message with pettiness?

But when the Liberal pages try to make a logical point it is typically loaded with fallacies.  A few samples I saw plus the comments I left:

It is only charity when you donate your money and time. Forcing others to “give” at the point of a gun doesn’t qualify. Jesus didn’t tell anyone to ask Caesar to take from neighbor A to give to neighbor B. Coveting is still a sin.   Even if his definition of giving matched the dictionary he would still be wrong on two counts. First, he pretends that we aren’t already “giving” vast amounts to the poor. Worse yet, he assumes that more of this “giving” will actually help the country.

This assumes that oxymoronic “same-sex marriage” is a civil right, but you haven’t proved that. You have about as much right to that as you do a square circle.

It also assumes that gays and lesbians can’t be “married” today in fake churches and live together as they like. They can do that all-day, every day and we won’t complain. There is simply no need for the government to get involved in their relationships, because by nature and design they do produce the next generation.

Like nearly all pro-abortion arguments, that ignores the body of the innocent human being destroyed in the abortion.The scientific fact (http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq) is that a new human being is created at fertilization.

Anyone who supports taxpayer-funded abortions is pro-abortion.  They think that pro-lifers don’t have a choice as to whether they should have to fund abortions, and they think that one of our society’s problems is that we aren’t killing enough unwanted human beings.  The Democratic platform is officially pro-abortion.

If it isn’t a political issue, why do the Democrats want to force pro-lifers to pay for abortions?

Yep, we oppose gender-selection abortions — nearly all of which destroy unwanted females — and the Left fights for them. Tell me again who hates women?

Oh, and abortions kill blacks at a rate three times that of whites. And who are the racists who want to increase that rate with taxpayer-funded abortions?

Other commenter: Please quote your source for taxpayer-funded abortion. Fox News? Bzzzz. They definitely don’t happen at Planned Parenthood. Please come back when you can argue without using strawman arguments or false equivilencies.

Hi — would the 2012 Democratic Platform be an acceptable source for you? “Protecting A Woman’s Right to Choose. The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay.”  http://assets.dstatic.org/dnc-platform/2012-National-Platform.pdf

Thanks for making the day of this conservative. I hope you reconsider your views once you realize you were just shouting from Stereotype-Land (I don’t watch Fox News — not that there is anything wrong with that).

The Democratic platform called for taxpayer-funded abortions. That would increase the rate of black abortions beyond the current rate, which is three times that of whites.

Democratic policies keep blacks dead or dependent. Coincidence?

A lousy way to keep your majority

Some people spout stereotypes so reflexively that they don’t even realize how they are contradicting themselves.

A commenter at the Sojourners blog was quick to play the “conservatives are racist” card and insisted that white conservatives are upset about losing our majority and are doing everything we can to fight to keep it.

Unfortunately for her, I pointed out the rate of abortions in the black community is triple that of whites (and the rate of Hispanics is double that of whites). Therefore, if we are so desperate to keep our majority we’d do the following:

  1. Oppose any restrictions to abortions
  2. Support taxpayer funded abortions, which are sure to increase those ratios
  3. Support Planned Parenthood, which targets minority communities

Of course, we do the opposite of those things. So we are either completely unaware that our behaviors are hastening our demise (eek!) or maybe — just maybe! — we aren’t racist after all. Perhaps we think it is immoral to kill innocent human beings of any skin color and we would gladly sacrifice our majority to save lives.

If any group is racist, wouldn’t it be the one supporting policies that result in non-whites being destroyed at rates faster than whites?

Defending conservative principles is not racist. Playing the race card instead of using facts and logic is racist.

It’s a great time to brush up on your pro-life reasoning

With all the debate over the health care bill, abortion is back in the news.  Many people know it is wrong but don’t know how to present the case for life.  Please spend a little time getting educated and be ready to share the truth in love.  Lives are at stake.

Even if you are firmly pro-choice I urge you to review these resources.  The worst that could happen is that you learn more about your ideological enemy’s arguments.

If you only have time for one web site, go to Abort73.com.  They have a thorough, concise and easy to read site that takes you through all the major issues. 

Or go through the slides I use for training volunteers at CareNet.  And learn about what organizations like CareNet do for women in crisis pregnancies.  Or scan my posts in the Pro-life Reasoning category to the left.

Then see this fact based, winsome and reasoned defense of life by Kathy Ireland.  She went from pro-choice to pro-life after examining the scientific evidence.  Don’t just listen to the facts, note her compelling manner.

Then watch the O’Reilly interview with Abby Johnson, the Planned Parenthood Director who quit after participating in an ultrasound and seeing a human being lose its fight for life. 

Or search Stand to Reason for their many outstanding pro-life resources and articles.

Please take the time to get a little better informed.  You don’t have to know everything, but you can learn enough to easily defend the basics of the pro-life view.  Or you’ll at least have some resources to point people to.  And you can at least point out that while abortions may be legal it is a radical change to make pro-lifers fund them with taxes, and that the Democrats have consistently lied on this point.

P.S. Planned Parenthood hides statutory rape.  Why will the health care bill give them even more business?  Why haven’t they been de-funded already?  I’d rather fund ACORN than them.

Budget deficits: One picture says it all

For the record, I thought that President Bush spent way too much money.  But even more for the record, consider these projected deficits.  They make the Bush spending look like break-even years — and this is before the atrocious health care bill. 

bush_deficit_vs_obama_deficit_in_pi

I know Obama likes to blame Bush for all his problems, even though that is 180 degrees off his campaign rhetoric, counter to what past Presidents have done and just plain immature.  But if this is the best Obama can do I’d rather have Bush back.

Hat tip: Democrats Consider Plans To Lower Deficit They Created