Your "Conservative" President

[Max Power]

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf

Revised data released during the summer by the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) provide analysts the
ability to make side-by-side comparisons of the spending
habits of each president during the last 40 years.1 All
presidents presided over net increases in spending overall,
though some were bigger spenders than others. As it turns
out, George W. Bush is one of the biggest spenders of
them all. In fact, he is an even bigger spender than
Lyndon B. Johnson in terms of discretionary spending.

George Bush is the #1 president in terms of government spending. Of all time.


What does "conservative" mean again?

 

[dilloduck]

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf



George Bush is the #1 president in terms of government spending. Of all time.


What does "conservative" mean again?

So as a liberal are you just thrilled that he is following in the footsteps of the big spending Dems ?

 

[Max Power]

So as a liberal are you just thrilled that he is following in the footsteps of the big spending Dems ?

I'm only liberal on non-fiscal issues, i.e. social issues.

You might label me a libertarian, if you were so inclined.

http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

How about you?

 

[dilloduck]

I'm only liberal on non-fiscal issues, i.e. social issues.

You might label me a libertarian, if you were so inclined.

http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

How about you?

I've grown up and learned the wisdom of conservatism.

 

[Max Power]

I've grown up and learned the wisdom of conservatism.

Feel free to (attempt to) impart any of that on me.
You don't have to bother to explain fiscal conservatism to me (preaching to the choir). But I just don't understand social conservatives - people who think that gays shouldn't be allowed the government provided (not church provided) benefits of marriage, or people who think that drugs should be illegal because "drugs are bad," etc etc.

 

[Toro]

Bush is not an economic conservative. Conservatives of this ilk want to reign in government, not expand it AND leave it much more in debt.

 

[KarlMarx]

Feel free to (attempt to) impart any of that on me.
You don't have to bother to explain fiscal conservatism to me (preaching to the choir). But I just don't understand social conservatives - people who think that gays shouldn't be allowed the government provided (not church provided) benefits of marriage, or people who think that drugs should be illegal because "drugs are bad," etc etc.

Proponents of gay marriage frequently blame the current administration for "denying" the "right" of marriage to gays. That's not true. First, marriage is not a right as defined by the Constitution of the United States. If it were a right, then divorce laws in this country should all be struck down as unconstitutional because they deny a civil right to those who don't want to be divorced (contrary to popular wisdom, most divorces in this country are initiated by one party over the objections of the other, 85% of divorces are initiated by women). Gay marriage is an attempt by radical gay rights activists to redefine the cultural institution of marriage specifically and society in general to fit their world view. Also, the radical gay activists paint gays as victims of oppression and taking part in a struggle similar to that of blacks during the height of the Civil Rights movement or those suffered by Jews during the Holocaust. That is also not true.

Gays suffer few, if any, of the injustices suffered by blacks during the height of the Civil Rights Movement. First, gays are not being systematically excluded from the political process. They are, if anything, extremely well organized politically, their movement is extremely well funded and they have the ear of many high ranking government officials. Secondly, gays do not suffer from economic discrimination based on their orientation. If anything, many gays, especially gay men (who are considered by anti-gay bigots to be much more repugnant than lesbians) enjoy a higher standard of living than the general population. This is because they make more, tend to be more likely to own their own businesses and own property. Thirdly, American culture and Western culture in general has become tolerant of gays and their lifestyle. Gays are often portrayed on TV in a positive light, openly gay celebrities enjoy the same status as their straight counterparts. Fourth, gays are now being singled out for preferential treatment by the laws of several states in the form of “hate crime legislation” which makes any crime perpetrated by an individual against a gay person more serious than the same crime perpetrated against, for instance, a straight, white guy.

To offer a historical perspective to the so called “gay holocaust” during the days of the Nazis and Hitler, one merely has to look at a few facts. First, the Gestapo, which was the organization that spawned the SS, which participated in the mass murder of Jews was started by a close associate of Adolph Hitler, Ernest Rohm. Ernest Rohm was a homosexual and did not attempt to hide that fact from Hitler or the Nazis. In fact, Hitler had no objections to Rohm’s sexual orientation so long as he served a purpose to him and the Nazi Party. Secondly, the number of homosexuals that were exterminated by the Nazis during the Holocaust number roughly 6,000 – 10,000. That is one gay person for every 1,000 Jews exterminated. Considering that 2 to 5 percent of a given population is gay and that the number of people in Europe during rule of the Nazis was in the tens of millions, any systematic attempt to exterminate gays by the Nazis would have produced far more deaths. It didn’t happen. All attempts by the radical gays to paint gays as victims of the Holocaust does a great injustice to those who actually were the target of Nazi oppression, mostly the Jews.

To paint gays as being an oppressed group of individuals is to parrot the propaganda of the radical gay activists rather than speak the truth.

As to your second argument that the Right claims drugs should be illegal, because they are bad. To put it succinctly, drugs ARE bad. One only has to look at the effect on our society of widespread crack and speed usage over the past 10-20 years. Secondly, those who advocate legalizing drugs on ignore the Law of Supply and Demand. Their argument goes somewhat like this, if drugs were legalized and only the government could sell them, then the price would be kept low and the money out of the hands of gangs and drug cartels. Once the price was set to a low level, addicts won't be forced to commit crimes to finance their habit.

The Law of Supply and Demand (which is a natural law as is the Law of Gravitation and is not open to debate) states that demand is inversely related to price (i.e. the demand for a good or service goes up when the price of a good or service goes down).

Before the 1980s, cocaine use was generally confined to a few people, mostly white collar professionals and those who had high incomes, since the drug was quite expensive. In fact, during the heyday of disco, cocaine was a status drug, often sniffed with a rolled up 100 dollar bill. Users wore expensive "coke spoon" jewelry (small spoons used to sniff the drug often made of silver, gold or platinum) as a sign that they not only used the drug, but that they could afford it.

That all changed in the 1980s with the introduction of "crack" cocaine. Crack is a cheap form of cocaine. Once the price of the drug became affordable to the general population, the demand for cocaine went up (which is just what the law of supply and demand predicts). The effect on society has been nothing short of calamitous. Some sources also claim that Castro helped the Colombian Drug Cartels increase the supply of the drug coming into the United States by providing assistance and cover to the ships and airplanes that shipped the drug to the US in exchange for a “cut” in the profits.

How about if the government instead limited the supply of cocaine, crack, speed etc even though it was legal? Oh yes, the Law of Supply and Demand predicts the effect of that, as well. If the supply is limited, but the demand remains high, users will find other sources of the drug (i.e. the black market), so that you'll find yourself back to where you started from (i.e. cracking down on illegal drug use).

The same scenario will be true for any other drug. The Law of Supply and Demand will always be in effect. Thus, the effect of any legalization of illicit drugs will be the same i.e. widespread use, a large addict population and the social ills that come with it.

Besides that, criminal elements HAVE made money off of legal drugs. The Mafia (and other criminal organizations) have made money off of stolen cigarettes and booze. Since the goods are stolen, the effect is 100% profit to the seller, so they can afford to sell the goods at a lower price than the legal equivalent. The same can be expected if drugs were legalized. The Mafia and other criminal organizations will simply hijack shipments of the drug and sell it on the black market.

Using these arguments, one can see that legalizing illicit drugs will only serve to exacerbate the problem that you hope to solve.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I see little sonny boy is over hear spreading his lies also.

Hey Maxxie boy, did you recant your statment here like you did in the other thread where I proved you wrong?

As for social conservatism, we are because thats what the country was founded on, and it works, so we stick with it. TOO BAD for ye. hahahahha

and for anyone who wants to discuss the issue with sonny boy, well, you might as well go and try to teach the complexities of social systems to a five year old, you will have more sucess

From his own post,

This is the book he read:
Ben's Guide to U.S. Government for Kids."

 

[Max Power]

As for social conservatism, we are because thats what the country was founded on, and it works, so we stick with it. TOO BAD for ye. hahahahha

The country was founded on slavery too. Should we go back to that?
Haha.
:Owned:

 

[Max Power]

Karl, I'm not going to argue gay rights with you, because that could easily be another thread or 10. I just think that they should be entitled to the GOVERNMENT PROVIDED benefits of marriage. If a church does not wish to marry gay people, it doesn't have to.

As to your second argument that the Right claims drugs should be illegal, because they are bad. To put it succinctly, drugs ARE bad. One only has to look at the effect on our society of widespread crack and speed usage over the past 10-20 years.

Right. Drugs are bad. Except for prescription drugs, caffiene, alcohol, those are good, right?
Have you ever heard of prohibition? That was a success, right? Haha NO.
The important question is - why should the government be allowed to tell a person what he can do with his own body? Funny how "proponents of small government" just love the idea of government telling you what you can and can't do.

The Law of Supply and Demand (which is a natural law as is the Law of Gravitation and is not open to debate) states that demand is inversely related to price (i.e. the demand for a good or service goes up when the price of a good or service goes down).

Uh oh. I"m about to debate your "undebatable" law there.
First of all, your terms are mixed up. Demand doesn't go up or down with price. Quantity demanded goes up or down with price. But that's not a big deal.
Second of all, your "law" there is not universally true.
A Giffen good is a product for which a rise in price of this product makes people buy even more of the product
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giffen_good
Haha. Your "law" isn't as universal as you think it is.

Besides that, criminal elements HAVE made money off of legal drugs. The Mafia (and other criminal organizations) have made money off of stolen cigarettes and booze.

Just compare their efforts NOW with alcohol vs their efforts in the 1920's and you'll realize what a foolish statement you're making.

 

[dilloduck]

The country was founded on slavery too. Should we go back to that?
Haha.
:Owned:

We do have slavery--it's just real subtle and changed forms

 

[rtwngAvngr]

At least republicans will defend the country, and that's a big deal. At least they will acknowledge the war on terrorism.

 

[KarlMarx]

Right. Drugs are bad. Except for prescription drugs, caffiene, alcohol, those are good, right?
Have you ever heard of prohibition? That was a success, right? Haha NO.
The important question is - why should the government be allowed to tell a person what he can do with his own body? Funny how "proponents of small government" just love the idea of government telling you what you can and can't do.

Government rules by the consent of the governed. You have smaller government confused with total anarchy. One of the powers given to the Federal government is to look after the public welfare. The war on drugs clearly falls within that scope.

Caffeine, alcohol etc have been used for centuries and there wasn't a general decay in society, as there has been with the widespread use of illicit drugs. Cocaine, heroin, speed and other drugs are highly addictive, whereas caffeine and alcohol are not.

Uh oh. I"m about to debate your "undebatable" law there.
First of all, your terms are mixed up. Demand doesn't go up or down with price. Quantity demanded goes up or down with price. But that's not a big deal.

And... what's the point? The point I was trying to make is that cheap drugs, even if legal are a bad idea.

Second of all, your "law" there is not universally true.
A Giffen good is a product for which a rise in price of this product makes people buy even more of the product
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giffen_good
Haha. Your "law" isn't as universal as you think it is.

Ha..... neither are the laws of Newton, they were superceded by Relativity. So should we compute time dilation, and mass changes when doing everyday calculations? The fact is that the Law of Supply and Demand is a given, even if you could come up with a few examples where it may not apply. That doesn't prove that it can't be applied to the argument for keeping drugs illegal.

Just compare their efforts NOW with alcohol vs their efforts in the 1920's and you'll realize what a foolish statement you're making.

I see, so a nation of addicts is a GOOD thing?

 

[Max Power]

Government rules by the consent of the governed. You have smaller government confused with total anarchy. One of the powers given to the Federal government is to look after the public welfare. The war on drugs clearly falls within that scope.

So where does your nanny state's power end?
Should we start forcing people to eat healthy? Stop selling bacon and McDonalds? I mean, that's just looking after public welfare.

Caffeine, alcohol etc have been used for centuries and there wasn't a general decay in society, as there has been with the widespread use of illicit drugs. Cocaine, heroin, speed and other drugs are highly addictive, whereas caffeine and alcohol are not.

First of all, caffiene and alcohol are both addictive. Not as much as heroin or crack, but moreso than some illegal drugs.
Second of all, 100 years ago, all of those drugs were used for centuries, and there wasn't a general decay in society ;-)
A 12 year old could walk into a corner drug store, pick up some Bayer brand heroin, and all without problem. All of the problems you describe didn't happen 100 years ago... what makes you think they'd happen now?

I see, so a nation of addicts is a GOOD thing?

A nation of freedom is good. And yes, that includes the freedom to become an addict.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Are we willing to allow people to die in the street? If not, society has a vested interest in keeping them OFF the social programs they will end up on.

 

[KarlMarx]

So where does your nanny state's power end?
Should we start forcing people to eat healthy? Stop selling bacon and McDonalds? I mean, that's just looking after public welfare.

It's a matter of interpretation, now isn't it?

First of all, caffiene and alcohol are both addictive. Not as much as heroin or crack, but moreso than some illegal drugs.
Second of all, 100 years ago, all of those drugs were used for centuries, and there wasn't a general decay in society ;-)
A 12 year old could walk into a corner drug store, pick up some Bayer brand heroin, and all without problem. All of the problems you describe didn't happen 100 years ago... what makes you think they'd happen now?

Have you ever heard of the Opium Wars in China? Look it up.
Cocaine was not synthesized until the 19th century, heroin likewise.
Part of the reason for the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 was that 12 year olds were becoming addicted.... as I said, the Constitution gives the Federal Government the power to look after the public welfare.

A nation of freedom is good. And yes, that includes the freedom to become an addict.

With freedom comes responsibility. You confuse freedom with license. You do not have the right to become an addict or engage in any other behavior that makes you a danger to yourself and others. What you are advocating is anarchy.

 

[Max Power]

the Constitution gives the Federal Government the power to look after the public welfare.

Where?

With freedom comes responsibility. You confuse freedom with license. You do not have the right to become an addict or engage in any other behavior that makes you a danger to yourself and others. What you are advocating is anarchy.

You have a right to be a danger to yourself.
I've never advocated being a danger to others... and that's the difference between freedom and anarchy

 

[LuvRPgrl]

The country was founded on slavery too. Should we go back to that?
Haha.
:Owned:

The country was founded on slavery, therefore EVERYTHING from that era is bad...okieeeeeeeeee dokie

idiocy knows no bounds.

Like I said, the country was founded on social conservatism. It wasnt founded on slavery.

Once again, too bad for ye, thats the way it is and it will stay that way for a loooong time,

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Karl, I'm not going to argue gay rights with you, because that could easily be another thread or 10. I just think that they should be entitled to the GOVERNMENT PROVIDED benefits of marriage. If a church does not wish to marry gay people, it doesn't have to..

Good idea, cuz there is no arguement. First, gays have the same rights as anyone. Second, as for same sex marriage, which is what I think you are referring to, THE PEOPLE voted it down. End of issue, nuff said. Virtually everyone who voted has heard all your liberal lame arguements, and they reject them as BS.

Right. Drugs are bad. Except for prescription drugs, caffiene, alcohol, those are good, right?
Have you ever heard of prohibition? That was a success, right? Haha NO.
The important question is - why should the government be allowed to tell a person what he can do with his own body? Funny how "proponents of small government" just love the idea of government telling you what you can and can't do..

Caffeine, alchohol, prescription drugs dont make you think you can fly so you jump out a ten story building, or make you think you are Jesus and order people to kill a pregnant woman and cut the unborn baby out.

Uh oh. I"m about to debate your "undebatable" law there.
First of all, your terms are mixed up. Demand doesn't go up or down with price. .

Bullshit. Demand is generated by DESIRE to own or purchase. That desire/demand is controlled by the price.

Quantity demanded goes up or down with price. But that's not a big deal.
Second of all, your "law" there is not universally true.
A Giffen good is a product for which a rise in price of this product makes people buy even more of the product
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giffen_good
Haha. Your "law" isn't as universal as you think it is..

Hey moron, your own link says:

"Giffen goods may or MAY NOT exist in the real world" i.e. it is a THEORY presented by someone.

Just compare their efforts NOW with alcohol vs their efforts in the 1920's and you'll realize what a foolish statement you're making.

You cant compare alcohol and drugs, you just cant do it. I guess the entire world is basically wrong on drug illegalization. hmmmmm

 

[Max Power]

You're a very angry individual, LuvRPgrl. Anger is the path to the dark side.

Good idea, cuz there is no arguement. First, gays have the same rights as anyone. Second, as for same sex marriage, which is what I think you are referring to, THE PEOPLE voted it down. End of issue, nuff said. Virtually everyone who voted has heard all your liberal lame arguements, and they reject them as BS.

Fortunately for gays, "The people," don't run this country.
We live in a constitutionally limited republic. Not a pure democracy.
This was intentional, to ensure that freedoms were not controlled by popular opinion.

Caffeine, alchohol, prescription drugs dont make you think you can fly so you jump out a ten story building, or make you think you are Jesus and order people to kill a pregnant woman and cut the unborn baby out.

Maybe you're taking the wrong prescription pills then
Either way, the "war on drugs" is nothing more than a war on freedom.
And, FWIW, good ol' mary jane will do a lot less to fuck up your mind than MANY prescription pills.

Bullshit. Demand is generated by DESIRE to own or purchase. That desire/demand is controlled by the price.

No. You are confused.
Price is controlled by supply and demand, not the other way around.

Hey moron, your own link says:

"Giffen goods may or MAY NOT exist in the real world" i.e. it is a THEORY presented by someone.

In 19th century Ireland, when the price of potatoes would rise, poor people were no longer able to afford meat and potatoes, so they purchased more potatoes.

Try to make sure you're 100% sure of something before you call someone a moron ;-).

Besides, I was just pointing out a flaw in Karl's "law." The flaw is 100% valid, and even has a name.

You cant compare alcohol and drugs, you just cant do it. I guess the entire world is basically wrong on drug illegalization. hmmmmm

Alcohol IS a drug. Are you debating this FACT?
Are you including Amsterdam in your "world?"