Rhino's vs Conservatives..

[ClosedCaption]

It's time for conservatives to be true conservatives, not pandering, wishy-washy, mealy-mouthed, liberal-light candidates.

I may not agree with Ron Paul, but at least he tells you the truth of his position and not what he thinks people want to hear. All candidates should be so honest.

Every con says the first part but they realize that no one fits ever! It's an impossible standard. Its like not picking superman because you want someone with more powers.

It's not just cons, the libs are just as guilty of pandering, maybe more so.

But I thought we were talking about a true conservative. If the topic is pandering then that's a different story. No one can name one person that was a "true conservative" in every sense unless you ignore parts of their record. That's why a "true conservative" will always be wanted by the right because no one can or will ever fit. Hell, cons attacked Regan for raising taxes among other things, it wasnt until he died that ppl made up this post mortum "conservative king"

 

[Lumpy 1]

A definition of true or real conservatism..I don't have the time to do it justice..and I'm hardly in the mood to start a long ponderous list... I recommend google...as your way to definition...

This links a good start...

http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/

 

[Amelia]

I'm voting for competence.

For some reason, that has led some people to call me a RINO.

 

[Amelia]

What is a "true conservative"?

That's food for thought, Wry Catcher. I had the privilege of living in the Equality State for 35 years of my adult life. They were ultra conservative.

Town hall meetings were weird affairs. Three people would get up and jump all over the counsel persons about them voting anything that cost more than five cents. The counsel persons would smile and thank them for their words of improvement.

When I first saw this ritual, I thought, "How rude." But in 35 years, I saw tax after tax go away, and at the end of the day, there were no new taxes ever. I heard about someone encouraging the one cent sales tax to build a new wing on the library, and after that was paid for, they never did repeal that tax. However, every time a new tax was introduced for this that or the other, the first volley started with "That's a bad idea. They still haven't gotten rid of the 1 cent tax they promised to get rid of just as soon as the library addition was paid off." The year after that library tax was passed, all of the council persons were replaced with new candidates.

If the people rise up against the people inundating the city, county, parish, state, or nation, that is true conservativism. Letting a less expensive tax rise brings up the "They haven't lowered the tax after the last raise that paid for the items so necessary, so they shouldn't get any more moeny..." argument, and things aren't quite as expensive. Of course, the grass around the courthouse might have to be replaced with concrete or rocks on waterproof sheeting to save money, and half-wattage street lights might have to replace existant ones, but taxes can stay low if you have a committed conservative base.

By himself, a real conservative is just a squeaky wheel. With a group, they can have a direct impact on people wanting more for the community than the community is willing to pay for.

Interesting.

 

[alan1]

Thank you, a clear and concise response.

I'd next ask what powers the federal government has adopted which a true conservative would cause to be repealed and what the consequences of such an action might be?

(I still wonder what Lumpy believes a "true conservative" believes)

Lumpy didn't use the term "true conservative", I did.

As for your question, I don't have time to write a book right now. (Especially considering how slowly I type)

Correct, mea culpa. Lumpy used the adjective "Real". Are not "real conservatives" and "true conservatives" synonymous?

I don't expect a book. You were clear and concise in your first response, it seems you must have a concept, an executive summary would be appreciated.

Are you an "Originalist"?

You did ask what I would repeal and what the consequences of such an action might be. By consequences, I would include anticipated outcomes and results (all theorized of course), as part of the "consequences", one must also anticipated the means to get there.

For example, suppose I were to say I want to end deficit spending and force the government to have a balanced budget. The means to get there requires me to list numerous programs to cut or eliminate (paragraphs full, virtually a chapter of a book). The "consequences" or outcome from eliminating or reducing said programs would require writing perhaps 100 times as much. Again, much of it theorized or simply personal opinion.

I'm not just trying to ignore your question, but it really is more than can be answered in a post on a political message board.

If by "originalist", you mean constitutionalist, then yes, I have strong constitutional leanings when it comes to how our government operates.

 

[Wry Catcher]

A definition of true or real conservatism..I don't have the time to do it justice..and I'm hardly in the mood to start a long ponderous list... I recommend google...as your way to definition...

This links a good start...

Conservative vs. Liberal Beliefs

You used the term vis a vis a RINO. Why use a term when you have no clear understanding of its meaning?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Lumpy didn't use the term "true conservative", I did.

As for your question, I don't have time to write a book right now. (Especially considering how slowly I type)

Correct, mea culpa. Lumpy used the adjective "Real". Are not "real conservatives" and "true conservatives" synonymous?

I don't expect a book. You were clear and concise in your first response, it seems you must have a concept, an executive summary would be appreciated.

Are you an "Originalist"?

You did ask what I would repeal and what the consequences of such an action might be. By consequences, I would include anticipated outcomes and results (all theorized of course), as part of the "consequences", one must also anticipated the means to get there.

For example, suppose I were to say I want to end deficit spending and force the government to have a balanced budget. The means to get there requires me to list numerous programs to cut or eliminate (paragraphs full, virtually a chapter of a book). The "consequences" or outcome from eliminating or reducing said programs would require writing perhaps 100 times as much. Again, much of it theorized or simply personal opinion.

I'm not just trying to ignore your question, but it really is more than can be answered in a post on a political message board.

If by "originalist", you mean constitutionalist, then yes, I have strong constitutional leanings when it comes to how our government operates.

A balanced budget is fine, you don't need to add too much detail. Explain how, if a balanced budget was required by law how our nation would pay for unfunded, unplanned for disasters?

In another sense you're correct. But if the programs cut included bridges for example and several critical bridges collapsed by natural or intentional events, how would they be repaired?

 

[Lumpy 1]

A definition of true or real conservatism..I don't have the time to do it justice..and I'm hardly in the mood to start a long ponderous list... I recommend google...as your way to definition...

This links a good start...

Conservative vs. Liberal Beliefs

You used the term vis a vis a RINO. Why use a term when you have no clear understanding of its meaning?

What.. you're the one with no understanding of conservatism...

or.. perhaps you've been playing a game...

 

[alan1]

Correct, mea culpa. Lumpy used the adjective "Real". Are not "real conservatives" and "true conservatives" synonymous?

I don't expect a book. You were clear and concise in your first response, it seems you must have a concept, an executive summary would be appreciated.

Are you an "Originalist"?

You did ask what I would repeal and what the consequences of such an action might be. By consequences, I would include anticipated outcomes and results (all theorized of course), as part of the "consequences", one must also anticipated the means to get there.

For example, suppose I were to say I want to end deficit spending and force the government to have a balanced budget. The means to get there requires me to list numerous programs to cut or eliminate (paragraphs full, virtually a chapter of a book). The "consequences" or outcome from eliminating or reducing said programs would require writing perhaps 100 times as much. Again, much of it theorized or simply personal opinion.

I'm not just trying to ignore your question, but it really is more than can be answered in a post on a political message board.

If by "originalist", you mean constitutionalist, then yes, I have strong constitutional leanings when it comes to how our government operates.

A balanced budget is fine, you don't need to add too much detail. Explain how, if a balanced budget was required by law how our nation would pay for unfunded, unplanned for disasters?

In another sense you're correct. But if the programs cut included bridges for example and several critical bridges collapsed by natural or intentional events, how would they be repaired?

See, your response is precisely what I was referring to.
You tell me I don't need to "add much detail", then you follow it up with a specific question about a specific scenario that requires detailed explanation.

I'll go ahead and dissect your first question, and maybe partially answer it.
Here was your question,

Explain how, if a balanced budget was required by law how our nation would pay for unfunded, unplanned for disasters?

The question assumes that by balancing a budget all unplanned events are thus unfunded. That is simply not the reality. Let me use my personal budget as an example. I don't have broken house windows in my personal budget. A couple years ago, I got home from work one day and one of my windows was broken (probably kids vandalizing because nothing was stolen and there was no other damage). I didn't have to borrow money (deficit spend) to replace my window. Instead, the fact that I live on a balanced budget that includes not spending beyond my income, means that I had money to pay for that window replacement. I also didn't expect my neighbor down the street to contribute to said window replacement. My broken window was unplanned, and technically, it was also unfunded.

 

[Wry Catcher]

A definition of true or real conservatism..I don't have the time to do it justice..and I'm hardly in the mood to start a long ponderous list... I recommend google...as your way to definition...

This links a good start...

Conservative vs. Liberal Beliefs

You used the term vis a vis a RINO. Why use a term when you have no clear understanding of its meaning?

What.. you're the one with no understanding of conservatism...

or.. perhaps you've been playing a game...

I have a very clear understanding of the New Right, aka, conservatism. I simply want to understand what those who characterize themselves as conservatives actually believe, and more to the point, if they understand the consequences of what they endorse.

 

[Lumpy 1]

I just noticed I put Rhino instead of Rino.. I wanna do over...

 

[Wry Catcher]

I just noticed I put Rhino instead of Rino.. I wanna do over...

Glib comments offer more insight than you might belief.

 

[Lumpy 1]

I just noticed I put Rhino instead of Rino.. I wanna do over...

Glib comments offer more insight than you might belief.

.....

 

[pgm]

This seems like the appropriate place for this:
Romney's record as the governor of Taxachusetts