What makes a person a conservative republican?

1. 0

   idratherbeposted 12 years ago

   I keep seeing this phrase and would like someone to clarify the phrase for me. Are they religeous? Against all entitlement programs? Etc...

   replyreport
   1. 72

      BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      God.
      
      Satan is more into liberal democrats. Like Judas.

      replyreport
   2. 59

      Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Statistically it makes them an older white male, religious and of much poorer education than the average with about 6% less wealth than the average liberal voter.

      replyreport
2. 0

   idratherbeposted 12 years ago

   So I'm to understand democrats aren't religeous? Are conservative republicans against all entitlement programs then?

   replyreport
3. 80

   mega1posted 12 years ago

   "conservative" republicans are generally "hide bound"  whatever the f*** that means!  but really, you know, so SURE they are just totally RIGHT!  dig?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      idratherbeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      So conservative republicans are narrow minded and think the past is the path to follow? And everyone else's ideas are wrong? To they base this on religeon?

      replyreport
      1. 80

         mega1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         some do, and some don't (to all of your questions)

         replyreport
4. 62

   Eric Newlandposted 12 years ago

   Conservative Republican is what us fiscally conservative socially liberal people keep getting stuck voting for.

   replyreport
5. 61

   Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years ago

   A lack of education and basic hygiene.

   replyreport
6. 0

   idratherbeposted 12 years ago

   @Ron, have to laugh, interesting answer! I'm just trying to figure out what the term conservative republican means. They seem to act very religeous? Followers of the bible and the constitution. But also against all entitlements unless it fits their needs? So to be a conservative republican i would have to be against social security, medicare, medicaid, disability, to name a few. But to follow their fiscal responsibility comments and support of capitalism, how could they favor a candidate like Romney? I'm lost here? And I'd be interested to know how many making these comments are on social security, medicare, medicaid or disability? Wouldn't having those entitlements be against everything they stand for? Can they have it both ways? I'm lost here!

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      No, the "entitlements" of Medicare/Medicaid/Disability aren't against everything we stand for.  It's the improper usage of those programs that's wrong.  Like trying to give them to everyone even if they are able to work or if they're illegals taking advantage of American taxpayers.  As in..."universal" health care is wrong because we're not all entitled to free care because we aren't all disabled nor children nor helpless & elderly.
      
      America is right in helping the poor citizens, the helpless (young or old) and anyone who's trying to find work. If that's "socialism" then so be it.  But no it's not comparable to communistic carp like Obama's definition of socialism meaning spread the wealth around and play a perverse game of modern-day Robin Hood against the successful people in America. 
      
      Instead of Obama's health care mandate, our Government should've focused more on cutting out fraud in the system and making it possible for affordable health insurance to be available to everyone.   We were on track with that, until the liberal agenda got inserted into it.  There's dignity and good purpose in trying to have a system where people can help themselves to a great extent, but there's no dignity in shelling out free benefits to everyone just so they'll kiss some liberal politician's hand.
      
      If Romney's "universal" heath care plan worked in his particular State, then I guess that's up to that State to accept it or to discontinue it.
      
      But when the Federal Government mandates those types of laws, they're taking away the freedom of the American people, States' rights, paving the way for the President to become a dictator.   Just like the current Administration has pushed other illegalities onto all of America by hook and by crook, including our military people.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         mega1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         How are you going to "help the poor" without spreading some of the wealth?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Taxes.  Using taxes like we've always done to fund programs to help the poor has worked.  Until, like I said, the liberal agenda started to make it personal by actions like imposing "class warfare" by zeroing in on the wealthy.   The wealthy shouldn't have to pay a higher ratio of taxes than anyone else!
            
            Plus charities.  Charities have always helped the poor.  And guess who donates most to those charities?---the wealthy, wouldn't you imagine?     AND if the wealthy are forced to pay more taxes, that takes away from their free will charitable donations.   Charity should be given freely by those who choose to give freely.  It shouldn't be taken from them by mandate.

            replyreport
         2. 59

            Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Your not of course which is why the number of poor people in the USA has been rising for decades and as easily demonstrated by countries which do practice wealth distribution it is the only known effective working method as shown by Cuba's 1.5% poverty rate or perhaps better demonstrated by Norway's 2.2% poverty rate when compared to the 16% and rising in the US.

            replyreport
      2. 0

         idratherbeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         @Brenda Durham, so a conservative is only conservative when it's applicable to them? Example: social security, medicare, and disability? Those are "Entitlement Programs" no matter how you try to spin it. For that matter a government employee would be an entitlement program, because "tax payer dollars" pay them. As for healthcare, President Bush had the opportunity to sign a bill, allowing same type businesses to group together to get insurance discounts, making it more affordable. Did he sign it? No. Charites are all well and good, but what are these big charity givers getting in return? Satisfaction of helping the poor? I hope so? And to say that giving tax breaks to the wealthy will create jobs? If that were the case why did we lose so many jobs during President Bush's presidency? I voted for President Bush for healthcare and jobs and was, to say the least, disappointed.

         replyreport
7. 61

   Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years ago

   Hitting yourself on the head repeatedly with a hammer is a good step toward becoming a conservative Republican.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      Druid Dudeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Conservative republicans are caused by genetic mutation.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Well there is a genetic theory that has a fair bit of evidence that claims that conservatives are humans who have more neanderthal genes, on average the human DNA chain has about 6% given to it from Neanderthal origins and the reason Neanderthals died out was because they were incapable of adapting to different conditions or accepting new ideas, so the theory goes those that have difficulty accepting new ideas and fear change are those with more neanderthal genes, statistical testing shows a strong correlation between the two and seems to back the theory.

         replyreport