One of the big things the left argues about related to spending is the amount on the military and the lack of it on social programs. Last time I looked, establishing and maintaining a military was a delegated power of Congress with no mention of food stamps, marriage, healthcare, etc. in the Constitution. While you may not like the amount spent on the military, that's a different thing that whether or not the power exists.
I have no idea what you are talking about now. I don't recall talking about the military or food stamps. Frankly, my opinion of the far left is the same as my opinion of the far right. I happen to be a conservative, a Goldwater conservative. Which, of course, makes me a RINO because I don't just toe the party line of the far right. I don't really argue with people on the left because I have no dog in that hunt. Let them police themselves. I am concerned with what has happened to the Conservative movement, which used to populated by intellectual giants such as Goldwater and Buckley. Now it has Limbaugh and Beck. They tossed out true Conservative principles in exchange for money and power, and pander to people who are only interested in being told what they want to hear.
Spoiled brats are all you are going to find on either end of the spectrum.
I used it as an example. I thought smart people could relate general principles. I'll make it easy.
You didn't mention the military or food stamps but you did say that you have the opinion that those on the right are spoiled brats. Spoiled brats expect a yes answer even yes isn't the answer that needs to be given. I used the EXAMPLE of how the left constantly bitches about military spending. I pointed out that maintaining a military, which involves spending, is a delegated power. I also pointed out, an an EXAMPLE, that social welfare spending is nowhere to be found in the same document that specially mentions the military.
Let's tie it together. You claim the right is a bunch of spoiled brats because they don't want to be told no on something specifically in the Constitution yet seem to think the left isn't when they're told no on things for which no Constitutional authority is given.
You're not a RINO you're a CINO. Those you call the far right don't have a party, it's called an ideology. I'm concerned with what happened to those like you that call themselves Conservatives. You claim you are then defend anything but conservatism. What you should say is you are concerned with what happened to conservatism in the manner YOU think it should be.
I said those on the far right. Do try to follow what I actually say. I know it makes it harder for you, but make an attempt.
Let's figure out your point.
I fully support freedom of speech under the first amendment. How is that not a Conservative value?
I fully support the right of every American citizen to equal protection of the law. How is that not a Conservative value?
I specifically said the far right. Try to read. It's only three letters in far.
It's not about whether or not someone supports the freedom, it's about how many apply that support in a hypocritical manner Liberals and those like you say tolerance of other's views should take place. However, when someone exercises their freedom of speech in a way you and Liberals don't agree with, you find plenty of excuses as to why you don't have to be tolerant of those view. More than once I've been told that not being tolerant of a bigoted view isn't intolerance. The interesting thing is that the view someone held toward what they called bigotry was done in a bigoted manner.
The concept of equal protection under the law isn't the issue but how equal is defined and applied. I find that many will argue for same sex marriage using the 14th amendment as the basis of their argument. They claim that two consenting adults, of age, that love each other shouldn't be denied marriage. In other words, their argument is based on the premise of equal treatment. A lot go further to say that opposition to such marriages don't have valid reasons in the opposition really meaning they disagree with those reasons are the source where that reasoning comes from. However, ask them whether or not they support a brother/sister marriage and the same ones will quickly say no despite both being consenting adults, of age, that apparently love each other. In addition, while they'll demand the reasons they provide are valid and demand people accept them. What they're saying is that any marriage other than the types they approve of can be restricted if they say so.
Actually, you said "You claim the right is a bunch of spoiled brats because they don't want to be told no on something specifically in the Constitution yet seem to think the left isn't when they're told no on things for which no Constitutional authority is given." You didn't use the word far in describing what I was saying.
What you are claiming liberals are doing you are doing. My position is that the writer had the right to say what he said, I was free not to care and the churches were free to do as they please. I said that plainly. Others said it was sedition. Yet you disagree with me and support them. How is that supporting freedom of speech? And if you don't support free speech, how is that a Conservative value?
You aren't discussing this with some ethereal "them", you are discussing it with me. As long as the government is in the marriage business the laws need to be applied to all equally. So long as the parties are adults, it is up to them how to live - not the government. Brother and sister, three women and two men, whatever. Not my cup of tea but I don't have to live in the relationship. The place of the government is to issue the license and resolve any disputes if it doesn't work out, not to dictate lifestyles. How is that not a Conservative value?
