If we had a conservative nurses forum

Independent who leans towards Libertarian views.

Would anyone post in it?

I looked forward to being a nurse for so long....my second thoughts aren't because of nurses eating their own (I have never seen that!) or hours or mean docs (haven't seen that either)... it is because the only conservatives I have met are my fellow military vets.

The vast majority of nurses I have met (or been attacked by) have been liberals who treat me like I am insane because I am a conservative! Wow!

So....out of curiousity, how many conservatives are on this board???

Liberals have to attack other points of view, it's all part of their strategy! It's very rare to have a conversation with a liberal where they don't pull out some sort of inequality, conservatives hate everyone but the rich card!

I guess one would say I am conservative. No too conservative, just enough. I would like to say though I never ask what other people's political affiliations are either at school or in the workplace. No one will ever hear me voice my opinion in those places. It's opening up a large can of worms. I prefer to remain neutral in the workplace and at school. Some people are so passionate, which is a good thing, but will hold it against you if you don't agree with them. This includes management so I keep that stuff to myself.

Liberals have to attack other points of view, it's all part of their strategy! It's very rare to have a conversation with a liberal where they don't pull out some sort of inequality, conservatives hate everyone but the rich card!

Then there's the "everyone-hates-conservatives-poor-pitiful-us" victim card ... tiresome but good for the conservative entertainment complex's bank balance. Conservatives have run the country for thirty years ... that paticular charge just doesn't pass the smell test.

If you object to the polarization and lack of understanding/communication - stop (literally) buying into it.

Disagreement does not equal attack. You get the respect that you give. ("Libtards" indeed!)

I draw a distinction in my thinking between conservatism (with which I, a far-left radical, have a lot in common) and the faux conservatism peddled by the neocon entertainment complex since the days of Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich.

When arguments are presented from solid, well thought out conservative principles, I can engage and agree to disagree when necessary, and let the vote sort it out.

But when arguments are presented based on imaginary "facts", frequently cloaked in racial code and promoting (painfully transparent) hidden agendas, then I will not only disagree, but will also fall out laughing. If someone's feelings are hurt, then that person maybe should have refrained from urinating on my foot and calling it rain.

Then there's the "everyone-hates-conservatives-poor-pitiful-us" victim card ... tiresome but good for the conservative entertainment complex's bank balance. Conservatives have run the country for thirty years ... that paticular charge just doesn't pass the smell test.

Don't know many conservatives who play the victim card. Who's our Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson?

Disagreement does not equal attack. You get the respect that you give. ("Libtards" indeed!)

You're right, but sadly, the liberal media doesn't see it that way.

When arguments are presented from solid, well thought out conservative principles, I can engage and agree to disagree when necessary, and let the vote sort it out.

Wish the liberal media felt that way, but the average person only sees the hatred they spew against opposing points of view. Sadly, in today's political climate, voters don't vote based on principles, they vote to keep their freebies.

But when arguments are presented based on imaginary "facts", frequently cloaked in racial code and promoting (painfully transparent) hidden agendas, then I will not only disagree, but will also fall out laughing. If someone's feelings are hurt, then that person maybe should have refrained from urinating on my foot and calling it rain.

So you're not that far gone, you obviously don't like Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson..

Then there's the "everyone-hates-conservatives-poor-pitiful-us" victim card ... tiresome but good for the conservative entertainment complex's bank balance. Conservatives have run the country for thirty years ... that paticular charge just doesn't pass the smell test.

Don't know many conservatives who play the victim card. Who's our Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson?

Disagreement does not equal attack. You get the respect that you give. ("Libtards" indeed!)

You're right, but sadly, the liberal media doesn't see it that way.

When arguments are presented from solid, well thought out conservative principles, I can engage and agree to disagree when necessary, and let the vote sort it out.

Wish the liberal media felt that way, but the average person only sees the hatred they spew against opposing points of view. Sadly, in today's political climate, voters don't vote based on principles, they vote to keep their freebies.

But when arguments are presented based on imaginary "facts", frequently cloaked in racial code and promoting (painfully transparent) hidden agendas, then I will not only disagree, but will also fall out laughing. If someone's feelings are hurt, then that person maybe should have refrained from urinating on my foot and calling it rain.

So you're not that far gone, you obviously don't like Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson...

Q.E.D.

I'd participate.

tralalaRN

You are an example of why some may feel they want a "conservative blog"! We don't need to hear liberal-speak again....and again...and again. We have heard it all already. And it usually assumes that conservatives are so inept that they don't know how to make the "right", decisions run their own lives.

1. Banks and credit cards need money to operate

2.The mortgage collapse was due to Dodd Frank insisting that Banks make bad loans. Other wise threatened they would publically be accused of "redlining" (discriminating against the poor esp. minorites.) SO they loaned to people they were sure could never pay...people without jobs, with very poor credit ratings, with nowhere near 20% down (which is standard) Some of the loans were 0% down. Some had complicated terms buyers didn't understand. Banks get their money from lenders who demand at least a little profit. However, they felt somewhat reassured because of the newly created "Fanny Mae" and "Freddy Mac" which were supposedly backed by the fed. gov't. But Fanny and Freddy also failed

3. Buying out GM. In my thinking, NOBODY is "too big to fail!" That's why we have bankrupsy laws.

Every major airline has taken bankrupsy, but most of the public never knew it. A company who is not doing the job, SHOULD fail. If there is enough competition it won't matter. The auto workers might temporarily be out of work, but not for as long... as the American appetite for cars continued. Ford, Chrysler, Nissen, Honda would have to ramp up their production and would need autoworkers to do it. If GM had taken bankrupsy, they might have figured out what they were doing wrong and corrected it. But no, Uncle Sam made that unessesary.

4. Companies pay the higher corporation taxes than they would in any other country. Then they must pay what labor unions insist on...which is often more than similar jobs pay anywhere. A labor union robbed us of "Twinkies" (no great loss, IMHO).Of course the government must regulate businesses within reason. But the gov't, whose lawmakers (lately) have little or no experience in business, can easily pass so MANY and such difficult regulations that businesses can't expand, can't hire. That's the situation now. Businesses must plan ahead, which they can't do with our present administration.

5. health care. The ACA was passed entirely by democrats (not one republican) and it took some bribery and arm twisting to do that. (Remember the infamous Louisiana purchase for Mary Landreau.) Republicans had plenty of ideas despite what Obama said. They passed stacks of health care bills in the House, but Harry Reid would not even allow them to be considered in the Senate. Dems were (and are) so in love with "comprehensive bills" that any bill that addressed one problem at a time was ignored. There are many reasons why ACA might fail, since it is so impractical in so many ways.

Education. Who is responsible for your child? You or the government. If you have no time for your child, then it might as well be the government (and that's OK, If both parents work plus having other responsibilities. I'm not bashing hardworking or single parents) then the government is better than nobody... and they will EVEN FEED them. What a convenience. I'm saying that as an educated adult, I have ideas about what and how MY children are taught. If I don't like the "product" of the public schools, I should have a right not to use it. I think I'm a pretty good judge of what my children need to know as adults. I don't need the government to tell me. I should be able to choose any private school that is accredited. Why not just have a test...a glorified GED for kids to get a diploma. Simpler, cheaper, less intrusive.

I am thinking that "liberal media" means anything that is not FOX, Breitbart, or The Blaze sort of thing, right? Basically any media source which is not overtly conservative equates to liberal, right?

I don't like to label myself with one ideology or another but my feeling generally align with conservatism and occasionally libertarianism.

Otessa, I agree. I never have joined the ANA for the same reason (and I was a nurse for MANY years)

Funny, how normally well mannered people, even nurses, don't mind disparaging (a polite word) co/workers whose politics are different then theirs. This is a highly charged political atmosphere. I remember back as far as Pres. Truman and have NEVER seen such hostility between Political Parties! Every president I remember was very careful, when in office, not to bash the other party. They considered themselves president of the WHOLE country.

When they were critical of others, it was usually "some people" who think, want, believe or complain... Every one knew who they meant, but it didn't insult any one personally! Of course, it was a more polite era to begin with. But the poisonous political atmosphere today makes me wonder where our country is headed.

Someone wondered why conservatives are more comfortable on a conservative blog. Well, it's just nice not to feel we are facing adversaries all the time.

There is danger in living in a political and media bubble.

It is frightening the number of otherwise well educated people who refuse to read an informative and well conducted research paper because it comes from a "liberal" source. Or won't read a cited article because it is assumed to be biased. That experience is common on AN. I have had participants refuse to read a scholarly article from Yale and later post a link to an opinion piece from The Blaze. Go figure.

When you exist in a philosophical bubble you run the danger of believing that the echo of voices indicates validity.