Small Government Conservatives

[PubliusInfinitum]

Well, Kevin, the definitions keep changing. Everyone throws conservative around as though it means something, but it means a different thing to each group. Hell I bet even the republicans on this board would have eight different definitions of it. Social conservative, that should go with religious. Neo, that should go with Wolfowitz etc. Fiscal, that should go with McCain. "True conservative" seems to be the label that each and everyone of them wants.

Conservative comes from the base conserve. I was thinking about this today, about how even scientists could be called conservative, because they have to reproduce and document and make such incremental progress, everything they publish is a conservative statement. They never go out on a limb, any particular paper or other is only like 0.1% more of a contribution than the paper before it. And they are damn careful to be sure of their work before they publish. That sounds conservative.

But scientists are not considered conservative. Mostly because they are liberal in their social beliefs, I think, which gets back to social being the cultural basis for conservative.

I have been thinking about small government and the Bush years of outsourcing work to contractors - This is supposed to "shrink" government but you know, it doesn't. Because now we can't even audit what happened to those tax dollars that were given to the private sector to do works so that the government could be "smaller."

So now, 'small government' is getting to be just as woolly of a concept as 'conservative.' At least to me, in general day to day discussions. Some people think it means less taxes, others think it means fewer congressmen etc, others think it means fewer regulations.

So when I say "they are the real conservatives because they want small government, right?" and you say you don't understand, what I am getting at is, are we associating one group of the conservatives (the "real" conservatives) with one of the 'small government' ideologies - and I had hoped to kinda figure out which ideology.

I think it will be hard to rebuild the party without a good grasp of what aspect of government should be small (no trouncing liberties, please) or without what type of conservative is the 'real' conservative. Seems like those things have to be spelled out, and a consensus reached. I am hoping that happens, because the party has totally imploded as far as I can tell.

ROFLMNAO...

Oh Cali...

This isn't complicated... but you're right that 'conserve' is the base concept from which 'one who advocates for conservation' AKA: Conservative or Conservationist is comprised...

At this point the question simply becomes, 'what is one seeking to conserve?' Conservatives seek to conserve the principles, upon which the United States is based; the principles upon which the US was founded... meaning Conservatives seek to conserve the foundation of the United States.

To be a ‘real Conservative’ one merely has to know what those founding principles are... thus one must be of a sufficient intellect to be able to reason and this trait provides one with the irrefutable understanding that those principles do not change and are not invalidated when the subject shifts from 'social’ to ‘economic'... One that is 'socially conservative’, but ‘fiscally liberal' is a LEFTIST... OKA: An Anti-AMERICAN. This is because THEY ADVOCATE FOR POLICY WHICH STANDS ANTI-THETICAL TO THE PRINCIPLES ON WHICH AMERICA STANDS. The same can be said for that most precious of all breeds: the economic conservative who is socially liberal... they're not a neo-con... they're not a liberal conservative... THEY ARE A LEFTIST!; an ANTI-AMERICAN... again, this is because they are incapable of REASON and as such they've taken to advocating for policy which stands ANTI-THETICAL TO THE PRINCIPLES ON WHICH AMERICA RESTS...

And this is why it is so dangerous to let these imbeciles control the language... because they blur and confuse the language by stripping it of contrast, on the basis that stark contrast is said to 'not be nice...' the very basis of political correctness; these simple concepts are only made difficult to understand where one lends credence to idiots... Idiots who have blurred the meaning of otherwise simple concepts, through a litany of inane rationalizations, designed to ease the burden of living up to simple principles, and bearing their weighty responsibilities.

 

[Gunny]

Not surprising coming from the dumbest moderator of any political discussion ever existed in the history of politics. No, I don't want to regulate any of those EXCEPT FOR GUNS cause I'm tired of being the only country in the fucking world who has by far the most deaths by guns, aren't you? As for the other 3 things you idiot, I want to make them the freedom of choice, not at all regulate them. I want Abortion, Gay Marriage, and Weed ALL LEGAL and for your own decision. Did I spell that out for you Mr. "I'm the badass moderator?"

My being an administrator on this board has nothing to do with my response to your moronic bullshit, and is not a topic for duscussion by you. If that's too complicated for you to understand, I'm sure I can find other ways to explain it to you.

In response to your weak, tepid attempt at repsonding to me, Yes you DO want to regulate each and every one. You just want to regulate them according to YOUR morals. Look at YOUR OWN sentence:

"I want abortion, gay marriage and weed ALL LEGAL." For the stupid: THAT is legislating YOUR morals on others.

I suggest before you call anyone else dumb, you get a fucking education, huh?

BTW Einstein, guns ARE regulated.

And I AM a fucking badass. WTF are YOU going to do about it?

 

[Gunny]

And I'm the nieve one here right? Or, as you say, a complete idiot right? Again, prove me wrong then by showing me the an extremely large percentage of Cons don't vote Republican and I'll retract my statement. Until then, I guess I'm, according to you, going to stay an idiot

You aren't naive. You're stupid. You can fix the former, not the latter.

 

[Gunny]

Republicans don't have any interest in a small government. What they are interested in is privatizing the government. Instead of a government made up of we the people they want a government made up of we the corporate interests. Their disdain for we the people is obvious and pretty revolting.

I would tend to agree that Republicans, at least those controlling the GOP don't care about small government. He said "conservatives."

The disdain for we, the people is no more revolting from one side than the other. It just all boils down to who is trying to shove what down who's throats.

 

[Gunny]

Yes, Bush is a liberal in disguise and that is why so many Republicans were hoodwinked by him. Those damn liberals are as sneaky as hell.

Where's that thread about McCarthy's legacy?

Bush is not a conservative. He is a NeoCon. Compared to trued conservatism, he is on the left. That's just a fact.

 

[Gunny]

Poor conservatives.

Constantly being hoodwinked by their Republican crypto-communist leaders.

Speaking as a liberal who is being constantly hoodwinked by the Democratic (crypto-fascist) leaders, I can certainly feel their pain.

It isn't that anyone is hoodwinked. It's called looking at two distasteful items and having to choose one. You pick the one that's going to do the least damage.

Bush was in bed with the Democrats in this state, as well as Fox for 8 years. Anyone that thought he was going to be a true conservative didn't do their homework.

 

[Caligirl]

ROFLMNAO...

Oh Cali...

This isn't complicated... but you're right that 'conserve' is the base concept from which 'one who advocates for conservation' AKA: Conservative or Conservationist is comprised...

At this point the question simply becomes, 'what is one seeking to conserve?' Conservatives seek to conserve the principles, upon which the United States is based; the principles upon which the US was founded... meaning Conservatives seek to conserve the foundation of the United States.

To be a ‘real Conservative’ one merely has to know what those founding principles are... thus one must be of a sufficient intellect to be able to reason and this trait provides one with the irrefutable understanding that those principles do not change and are not invalidated when the subject shifts from 'social’ to ‘economic'... One that is 'socially conservative’, but ‘fiscally liberal' is a LEFTIST... OKA: An Anti-AMERICAN. This is because THEY ADVOCATE FOR POLICY WHICH STANDS ANTI-THETICAL TO THE PRINCIPLES ON WHICH AMERICA STANDS. The same can be said for that most precious of all breeds: the economic conservative who is socially liberal... they're not a neo-con... they're not a liberal conservative... THEY ARE A LEFTIST!; an ANTI-AMERICAN... again, this is because they are incapable of REASON and as such they've taken to advocating for policy which stands ANTI-THETICAL TO THE PRINCIPLES ON WHICH AMERICA RESTS...

And this is why it is so dangerous to let these imbeciles control the language... because they blur and confuse the language by stripping it of contrast, on the basis that stark contrast is said to 'not be nice...' the very basis of political correctness; these simple concepts are only made difficult to understand where one lends credence to idiots... Idiots who have blurred the meaning of otherwise simple concepts, through a litany of inane rationalizations, designed to ease the burden of living up to simple principles, and bearing their weighty responsibilities.

Do you agree that many different groups try to claim the mantle of "the true conservative"?

thanks for your thoughts, interesting -

 

[Caligirl]

Majority of people who voted for Obama voted against the gay marriage ban in California.

Is that true? I would have thought the ban got most of the McCain votes + some of the Obama votes enough to equal 52%, but not most of obama votes. That'd be amazing if most obama voters voted yes on eight, our neighborhood went 'yes' but but we're a family-oriented suburb.... do you have a link?

 

[Caligirl]

At this point the question simply becomes, 'what is one seeking to conserve?' Conservatives seek to conserve the principles, upon which the United States is based; the principles upon which the US was founded... meaning Conservatives seek to conserve the foundation of the United States.

To be a ‘real Conservative’ one merely has to know what those founding principles are...

You've mentioned these tenets before, but i haven't seen them spelled out here. I'd be curious for that, you sound very informed on the matter. What are the principles upon which the US was founded?

My guess would be self evident truths that all are created equal and have the rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But I've never studied the matter, so your input uis welcome.

 

[Lycurgus]

My being an administrator on this board has nothing to do with my response to your moronic bullshit, and is not a topic for duscussion by you. If that's too complicated for you to understand, I'm sure I can find other ways to explain it to you.

In response to your weak, tepid attempt at repsonding to me, Yes you DO want to regulate each and every one. You just want to regulate them according to YOUR morals. Look at YOUR OWN sentence:

"I want abortion, gay marriage and weed ALL LEGAL." For the stupid: THAT is legislating YOUR morals on others.

I suggest before you call anyone else dumb, you get a fucking education, huh?

BTW Einstein, guns ARE regulated.

And I AM a fucking badass. WTF are YOU going to do about it?

hahahaha ... oh man!

Here bigdaddygtr you need to dig faster!



Thanks Gunny, that one made my evening!

 

[jeffrockit]

Christian values? Huh... So it’s the VALUES you loathe, NOT the Tenets of the RELIGION!

ROFLMNAO... Notice friends how they're now flagrantly stepping well beyond the threshold of 'separation of church and state.' It's not NEAR enough that Christianity is not established as a ‘state religion...’ which is not something that is on the table or anything approaching it. The problem is the VALUES of Christians; can't have THOSE in the culture... ‘Keep your values to yourselves Christians...’ while the value-less are free to determine the cultural standards, we Christians are to shut up and keep our values to ourselves. Which BTW, they're prepared to SUE us over... seeking the subjective opinion of a single fellow secularist who happens to sit on the judiciary to FORCE the Christians to keep their values to themselves; values which were introduced into law through THE LEGISLATURE! The representatives of THE PEOPLE! Meaning they want to use the POWER OF GOVERNMENT TO KEEP CHRISTIAN VALUES, NOT TENETS… but VALUES! out of the rules WHICH GOVERN THE CULTURE IN WHICH WE LIVE…

ROFLMNAO... You people are idiots.

I tell you friends... if we could just require a citizen pass a simple IQ test before we could vote, the ideological left would be shut down IMMEDIATELY![/QUOTE]
Amen to all of the above!

 

[AllieBaba]

The whole concept of religion not being incorporated into the gov't is a BAPTIST concept, btw....look into the history of Jefferson and Adams if you doubt it.

 

[editec]

Okay, since it is obvious that many self proclaiming conservatives believe that BUSH II is a "liberal", who is, in your opinions a true conservative?

I can give you an example of what I think of a fairly true liberal if that would help...Dennis Kucinich.

Now when I look at somebody like Kuckinich, and compare him to Bush II, I sort of fail to see much similarity.

For example, Kucinich was oppossed to the bail out.

Bush was for it.

Kucinich was against the War that Bush started


I could go on, but I think you all get my drift.

Who IS a TRUE conservative in your opinions?

Oh, yeah, one more thing.

Buch isn't a liberal.

He's a classic authoritarian elitist.

He is about as removed from liberalism as one can get.

That doesn't make him a conservative, because as far as I can tell, true conservatives are as appalled by autoritarianism as most true liberals are.

 

[DiveCon]

Okay, since it is obvious that many self proclaiming conservatives believe that BUSH II is a "liberal", who is, in your opinions a true conservative?

I can give you an example of what I think of a fairly true liberal if that would help...Dennis Kucinich.

Now when I look at somebody like Kuckinich, and compare him to Bush II, I sort of fail to see much similarity.

For example, Kucinich was oppossed to the bail out.

Bush was for it.

Kucinich was against the War that Bush started


I could go on, but I think you all get my drift.

Who IS a TRUE conservative in your opinions?

Oh, yeah, one more thing.

Buch isn't a liberal.

He's a classic authoritarian elitist.

He is about as removed from liberalism as one can get.

That doesn't make him a conservative, because as far as I can tell, true conservatives are as appalled by autoritarianism as most true liberals are.

oh bullshit, Bush isnt authoritarian
LOL
and in the full spectrum, he isnt a liberal
hes a moderate

 

[Sidestreamer]

I love how you Cons "claim" to be for small government when you're not. You only want small government on the issues that we on the left like, but you have no problem making an invasion when its for your ideology like Abortion, Drugs, Guns, and Gays.

So, lets get this clear, you're small gov't but you want the gov't to regulate who can marry who, who can have a child or abort one, who can smoke weed in their house and who cant, and you want to make sure that guns(which I'm pretty sure are much more lethal then that joint I used to smoke in college) are easily accessible. I got that right?


Again, you're for small gov't when it suits you, then you want big gov't to push your Christian values on society - hilarious that you call us the big gov't people!

I think you're broad-brushing just a bit. There are a huge number of conservatives who don't have any problems with weed, though you'd probably call them Libertarians

A lot (maybe not the majority, but a large minority) of paleos and some neos don't care about the whole gay marriage fight or the abortion issue.

 

[Sidestreamer]

oh bullshit, Bush isnt authoritarian
LOL
and in the full spectrum, he isnt a liberal
hes a moderate

His only moderate stances are on border control and his view on AIDS. Foreign policy's fundamentally neoconservative, his social policies in general are Evangelical, and his economic policy is just flat-out reckless in any stripe.

 

[DiamondDave]

Another idiot using the term 'neoconservative' without having a clue as to what it really means... another great addition on this board

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

As long as you guys keep thinking in terms of left/right; conservative/liberal; Democrat V Republican you are going to be tools to the insiders.

You're an imbecile. (There are no 'insiders' DUMBASS)

Seriously neither party is ANYTHING philosophically.

Parties are not philosophical, witless, they're POLITICAL MACHINES.

Those parties are run by insider pragmatists who decide issue ad hoc based on what they need, and what they think they can sell an unimformed public

The parties are run by those who seek to change policy through the gathering of like minded individuals, the goal of which is to gain majority power and impart the aforementioned policy.

And their primary mission is to keep things essantially as they are...sweet for them and theirs with us paying the bills.

LOL... That's too funny... but its an irony thing. You're SO close, yet a million miles away.

They do this by keep Americans constantly looking for scapegoats, and constant at each others' throats over issues which the insiders could care less about...abortion, guns, queers, reparations and other nonsensical blather that so many Americans are obsessed about.

Well there ya go... a classic would-be moderate glossing over absolutely unavoidable cultural rifts, dismissing the principles at work in each and projecting same as little more than elements of distraction perpetrated by the shadows lurking within the political ether.

Abortion is not a right... when it is used to escape responsibility; it is murder; that Roe legalized that murder doesn't change that morally, it remains murder. The problem only BEGINS where the law begins to separate itself from what is morally valid; at that point, the law no longer serves justice and it is at that point where the culture which that jurisprudence serves begins to unravel; it begins to crumble in earnest, as no culture can long survive where it’s governance is no longer seen as holding the culture to law which is morally sound and logically valid. Such a law will soon become entangled in and recognized for its service to special interests and no longer representing equal justice, for all.

That’s all… so no real principle there to get pissy over…

Guns are the most effective last means to defend one's life that exist on this earth, your lack of awareness on that issue notwithstanding; queers can do what they've always done, the issue is not their queerness, that's just nature’s way, queerdom falls under 'shit-happens'... its the mainstreaming of queerdom and the decadent affect that doing so has on the culture; Very few people give a damn what you boys do with your queer lover, a goat, a bicycle, a bottle of grease and a hamster in the privacy of your bedroom... it's when you decide to do it on Main-street and where you want to cripple the concept of the nuclear-family, that we have a problem with.

Reparations are just one of those idiotic whimsies that fly out of the head of a leftist. No non-idiot takes it seriously; of course the problem there is that no non-idiot really believed that we'd ever be looking at the sitting of a Marxist Muslim as President of the US only 7 years post 9-11, with Hillary Clinton as Sec-State... so ya really have to stay on top of the idiotic whimsy that leftists let fly out of their mouths. In spite of what you claim, the fact is that the world is now being run by the lowest common denominator... The inmates are running to asylum; the animals, the zoo... The Children are running the day-care... and sis... that is one dangerous fucking day-care, Schmuckoh.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well, Kevin, the definitions keep changing. Everyone throws conservative around as though it means something, but it means a different thing to each group. Hell I bet even the republicans on this board would have eight different definitions of it. Social conservative, that should go with religious. Neo, that should go with Wolfowitz etc. Fiscal, that should go with McCain. "True conservative" seems to be the label that each and everyone of them wants.

Conservative comes from the base conserve. I was thinking about this today, about how even scientists could be called conservative, because they have to reproduce and document and make such incremental progress, everything they publish is a conservative statement. They never go out on a limb, any particular paper or other is only like 0.1% more of a contribution than the paper before it. And they are damn careful to be sure of their work before they publish. That sounds conservative.

But scientists are not considered conservative. Mostly because they are liberal in their social beliefs, I think, which gets back to social being the cultural basis for conservative.

I have been thinking about small government and the Bush years of outsourcing work to contractors - This is supposed to "shrink" government but you know, it doesn't. Because now we can't even audit what happened to those tax dollars that were given to the private sector to do works so that the government could be "smaller."

So now, 'small government' is getting to be just as woolly of a concept as 'conservative.' At least to me, in general day to day discussions. Some people think it means less taxes, others think it means fewer congressmen etc, others think it means fewer regulations.

So when I say "they are the real conservatives because they want small government, right?" and you say you don't understand, what I am getting at is, are we associating one group of the conservatives (the "real" conservatives) with one of the 'small government' ideologies - and I had hoped to kinda figure out which ideology.

I think it will be hard to rebuild the party without a good grasp of what aspect of government should be small (no trouncing liberties, please) or without what type of conservative is the 'real' conservative. Seems like those things have to be spelled out, and a consensus reached. I am hoping that happens, because the party has totally imploded as far as I can tell.

How in the world do you get McCain as a fiscal conservative?

A small government, in my opinion, is a government that is constrained by the Constitution as the founders intended. Non-interventionist foreign policy, less taxes, much less government spending, no Patriot Act, and no FISA amendments would all certainly be good places to start in shrinking the power of the federal government.

 

[Gunny]

Okay, since it is obvious that many self proclaiming conservatives believe that BUSH II is a "liberal", who is, in your opinions a true conservative?

I can give you an example of what I think of a fairly true liberal if that would help...Dennis Kucinich.

Now when I look at somebody like Kuckinich, and compare him to Bush II, I sort of fail to see much similarity.

For example, Kucinich was oppossed to the bail out.

Bush was for it.

Kucinich was against the War that Bush started


I could go on, but I think you all get my drift.

Who IS a TRUE conservative in your opinions?

Oh, yeah, one more thing.

Buch isn't a liberal.

He's a classic authoritarian elitist.

He is about as removed from liberalism as one can get.

That doesn't make him a conservative, because as far as I can tell, true conservatives are as appalled by autoritarianism as most true liberals are.

The problem I see here is that everyone keeps equating political ideology with party politics and party politicians. There is no such thing as a "true liberal" or "true conservative." As soon as the defining lines are drawn, before the ink is dry one side is trying to step over the line and the other trying to defend it.