Small Government Conservatives

[bigdaddygtr]

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!

 

[sealybobo]

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!

See my post BUSH OUTSOURCING GOVERNMENT JOBS.

The other reason to shrink the government is that you can outsource all that work to private companies, who usually end up costing us tax payers MORE.

But you are right too. They grew the fuck out of government AND outsourced. That's why we are broke!

The GOP/Republicans should be branded as big spenders. Conservatives want to convince you that Bush betrayed them. Yet for 6 years they defended everything Bush did.

Conservatives sat by and watched Bush double the debt. And they voted him back into office in 2004. Nuff said.

 

[del]

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!

See my post BUSH OUTSOURCING GOVERNMENT JOBS.

The other reason to shrink the government is that you can outsource all that work to private companies, who usually end up costing us tax payers MORE.

But you are right too. They grew the fuck out of government AND outsourced. That's why we are broke!

The GOP/Republicans should be branded as big spenders. Conservatives want to convince you that Bush betrayed them. Yet for 6 years they defended everything Bush did.

Conservatives sat by and watched Bush double the debt. And they voted him back into office in 2004. Nuff said.

have the two of you set a date yet?
ain't love grand?

 

[Skull Pilot]

True conservatives are not the people you are referencing.

These are the tenets of conservatism to which I like to think I adhere.

http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/essence-1957.html

1) Men and nations are governed by moral laws; and those laws have their origin in a wisdom that is more than human—in divine justice. At heart, political problems are moral and religious problems. The wise statesman tries to apprehend the moral law and govern his conduct accordingly. We have a moral debt to our ancestors, who bestowed upon us our civilization, and a moral obligation to the generations who will come after us. This debt is ordained of God. We have no right, therefore, to tamper impudently with human nature or with the delicate fabric of our civil social order.

I can leave god out of this and I prefer that he is left out

(2) Variety and diversity are the characteristics of a high civilization. Uniformity and absolute equality are the death of all real vigor and freedom in existence. Conservatives resist with impartial strength the uniformity of a tyrant or an oligarchy, and the uniformity of what Tocqueville called “democratic despotism.”

(3) Justice means that every man and every woman have the right to what is their own—to the things best suited to their own nature, to the rewards of their ability and integrity, to their property and their personality. Civilized society requires that all men and women have equal rights before the law, but that equality should not extend to equality of condition: that is, society is a great partnership, in which all have equal rights—but not to equal things. The just society requires sound leadership, different rewards for different abilities, and a sense of respect and duty.

(4) Property and freedom are inseparably connected; economic leveling is not economic progress. Conservatives value property for its own sake, of course; but they value it even more because without it all men and women are at the mercy of an omnipotent government.

(5) Power is full of danger; therefore the good state is one in which power is checked and balanced, restricted by sound constitutions and customs. So far as possible, political power ought to be kept in the hands of private persons and local institutions. Centralization is ordinarily a sign of social decadence.

(6) The past is a great storehouse of wisdom; as Burke said, “the individual is foolish, but the species is wise.” The conservative believes that we need to guide ourselves by the moral traditions, the social experience, and the whole complex body of knowledge bequeathed to us by our ancestors. The conservative appeals beyond the rash opinion of the hour to what Chesterton called “the democracy of the dead”—that is, the considered opinions of the wise men and women who died before our time, the experience of the race. The conservative, in short, knows he was not born yesterday.

(7) Modern society urgently needs true community: and true community is a world away from collectivism. Real community is governed by love and charity, not by compulsion. Through churches, voluntary associations, local governments, and a variety of institutions, conservatives strive to keep community healthy. Conservatives are not selfish, but public-spirited. They know that collectivism means the end of real community, substituting uniformity for variety and force for willing cooperation.

(8) In the affairs of nations, the American conservative feels that his country ought to set an example to the world, but ought not to try to remake the world in its image. It is a law of politics, as well as of biology, that every living thing loves above all else—even above its own life—its distinct identity, which sets it off from all other things. The conservative does not aspire to domination of the world, nor does he relish the prospect of a world reduced to a single pattern of government and civilization.

(9) Men and women are not perfectible, conservatives know; and neither are political institutions. We cannot make a heaven on earth, though we may make a hell. We all are creatures of mingled good and evil; and, good institutions neglected and ancient moral principles ignored, the evil in us tends to predominate. Therefore the conservative is suspicious of all utopian schemes. He does not believe that, by power of positive law, we can solve all the problems of humanity. We can hope to make our world tolerable, but we cannot make it perfect. When progress is achieved, it is through prudent recognition of the limitations of human nature.

(10) Change and reform, conservatives are convinced, are not identical: moral and political innovation can be destructive as well as beneficial; and if innovation is undertaken in a spirit of presumption and enthusiasm, probably it will be disastrous. All human institutions alter to some extent from age to age, for slow change is the means of conserving society, just as it is the means for renewing the human body. But American conservatives endeavor to reconcile the growth and alteration essential to our life with the strength of our social and moral traditions. With Lord Falkland, they say, “When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.” They understand that men and women are best content when they can feel that they live in a stable world of enduring values.

 

[Bern80]

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!

Wrong. Ironically even if true you're still mostly wrong. You are assuming the conservative postion is anti-abortion, anti-drugs, anti-guns and anti-gay. Assuming that was the agenda I fail to see how 3 out of 4 of those things would require larger government.

Next let's tackle your assumption about conservatives (which your argument of course rests on). Let's get this as skull pointed out your assumption of those positions isn't true of any real conservative.

Anti-Abortion: to an extent, yes. From a purely moral standpoint I believe it's wrong at any time. It isn't right and does no favor to a society to teach that it is okay to expunge the consequences of poor behavior. Legally however one has to admit at some stage you aren't end the life of an actual person, therefore there can't be any legal grounds opposing it. Also at some point ending the life of an innocent human is murder, which is a convictable crime. At what point are you ending the life of a human as oppossed to preventing a bunch of cells with no sentience from evolving. We don't know exaclty where that line is right now, but no one can be naive enough to think that there is a human inside there immediatley after conception. Nor can one be naive enough to think that a baby is somehow not a person immediatley before it is expelled from the whom.

Anti-Drugs: This one is a toss up. On one hand I would be fine legalizing most currently illegal drugs on the basis that there shouldn't be laws on the books that are there simply to prevent people from being victims of their own stupidity (I don't believe in seat belt laws either, but i still where one). On the other hand on the really hard drugs like heroine or something one would then assume there would spring up legal manufacture of heroine. The whole not believing in laws that protect people from their stupidity ends when said stupidity starts interferring with others. So the question is would the manufacture and legal sale of say heroine be so detrimental to its purchasers that it should remain illegal? Then you get into a where do you draw the lawn debate. Marijuana, cigs, booz?

Anti-Guns: As some know this is one I am pretty adamant about. Call it cliche as much as you like, but guns don't kill, people kill people. Restricting firearms makes so little sense on the merits of the argument, that doing so would require the same action against other less reviled inanimate objects, like cars.

Anti-Gay: Don't really care. Personally I think all marriages should be considered civil unions in the governments eyes. marriage is a religiously defined termed, so if you want to get married, go to a church and get married and leave the government out of it. As far as just homosexuality, there isn't any logical reason to be against it or for it. The big scare is that kids of gay couples will somehow turn out poorly, accept it's hard to do much worse than a lot of hetero couples.

 

[bigdaddygtr]

Wrong. Ironically even if true you're still mostly wrong. You are assuming the conservative postion is anti-abortion, anti-drugs, anti-guns and anti-gay. Assuming that was the agenda I fail to see how 3 out of 4 of those things would require larger government.

Next let's tackle your assumption about conservatives (which your argument of course rests on). Let's get this as skull pointed out your assumption of those positions isn't true of any real conservative.

Anti-Abortion: to an extent, yes. From a purely moral standpoint I believe it's wrong at any time. It isn't right and does no favor to a society to teach that it is okay to expunge the consequences of poor behavior. Legally however one has to admit at some stage you aren't end the life of an actual person, therefore there can't be any legal grounds opposing it. Also at some point ending the life of an innocent human is murder, which is a convictable crime. At what point are you ending the life of a human as oppossed to preventing a bunch of cells with no sentience from evolving. We don't know exaclty where that line is right now, but no one can be naive enough to think that there is a human inside there immediatley after conception. Nor can one be naive enough to think that a baby is somehow not a person immediatley before it is expelled from the whom.

Anti-Drugs: This one is a toss up. On one hand I would be fine legalizing most currently illegal drugs on the basis that there shouldn't be laws on the books that are there simply to prevent people from being victims of their own stupidity (I don't believe in seat belt laws either, but i still where one). On the other hand on the really hard drugs like heroine or something one would then assume there would spring up legal manufacture of heroine. The whole not believing in laws that protect people from their stupidity ends when said stupidity starts interferring with others. So the question is would the manufacture and legal sale of say heroine be so detrimental to its purchasers that it should remain illegal? Then you get into a where do you draw the lawn debate. Marijuana, cigs, booz?

Anti-Guns: As some know this is one I am pretty adamant about. Call it cliche as much as you like, but guns don't kill, people kill people. Restricting firearms makes so little sense on the merits of the argument, that doing so would require the same action against other less reviled inanimate objects, like cars.

Anti-Gay: Don't really care. Personally I think all marriages should be considered civil unions in the governments eyes. marriage is a religiously defined termed, so if you want to get married, go to a church and get married and leave the government out of it. As far as just homosexuality, there isn't any logical reason to be against it or for it. The big scare is that kids of gay couples will somehow turn out poorly, accept it's hard to do much worse than a lot of hetero couples.

If thats the case then true Cons DON'T exist in politics, but you vote Republican so I'll just take you at that

 

[Skull Pilot]

Actually, I vote libertarian whenever possible

 

[Bern80]

If thats the case then true Cons DON'T exist in politics, but you vote Republican so I'll just take you at that

I thought that was your head over my shoulder in the voting booth. I'm not sure on what basis you can presume to know how I vote. It might make you feel good to paint people with one big brush, when really it's pretty stupid and childish. I mean look at you, your entire argument is based on inaccurate assumptions and you continue to make them about individuals. Say what you want about the hypocrosy of some Republicans, but nothing makes someone look stupider and void of credibility then your argument here.

 

[DiamondDave]

If thats the case then true Cons DON'T exist in politics, but you vote Republican so I'll just take you at that

Hmm... you act as if conservative voters are not upset when a Republican goes against conservative values... this is not the case... but it is more likely that a conservative voter will still vote for a republican, because it is WAYYYY more likely they align with more of the conservative values than a Dem, and definitely the LIB will not come closer to the values of small government.... even if I am unhappy with the Republican choice, it does not mean I will turn around and vote for the big spending, big government, big red tape, big program libby... and since I personally do not like the incumbent REP in my district, I voted instead for the libertarian for congress this time, even thought it was a "wasted vote", because there was no way in hell I would vote for the even worse evil of the liberal

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You are referencing neo-cons, not traditional conservatives.

 

[Paulie]

You are referencing neo-cons, not traditional conservatives.

That's not what the media tells me.

 

[Caligirl]

You are referencing neo-cons, not traditional conservatives.

Has the party become more representative of neo-conservatives than traditional conservatives? Is this the same as saying the party has moved right?

If moving right equates to spending, and far left equates to spending, what does that say about the political spectrum? <scratch-head>

What a mess!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Has the party become more representative of neo-conservatives than traditional conservatives? Is this the same as saying the party has moved right?

If moving right equates to spending, and far left equates to spending, what does that say about the political spectrum? <scratch-head>

What a mess!

Yes, the party has become far more representative of neo-cons. Look at the choices that were presented to us for the Republican nomination, only one of them wanted to restrain the power of the federal government. Both parties are big spenders nowadays, the only difference is what they want to spend the money on.

And neo-cons aren't "moving right," neo-cons lean more to the left than a traditional conservative.

 

[Caligirl]

because of big govt, yes?

 

[Gunny]

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 love how dimwits like you project your misguided beliefs on everyone who doesn't think like you. You obviously don't know what a conservative is. Hell, you can't even spell it.

And just who the Hell are you for attacking ANYONE, conservative or not, for wanting the government to control everyone's lives? You want to regulate who can marry who. You want to regulate who can have a child and abort one. WHo can smoke weed in their house and who can't. And you want to regulate who can and cannot have a gun in their house.

In other words, shut up.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

because of big govt, yes?

I'm sorry I don't know what you're referencing, what exactly are you asking?

 

[DiveCon]

I'm sorry I don't know what you're referencing, what exactly are you asking?

liberals think neocons are extreme right
they dont have a clue what conservatives REALLY believe


of course if necons are extreme right, conservatives must be the wacko super extreme right

more a case of them not even begining to understand conservatism

i think its funny how a conservative can pretend to be a lib on a forum, but a lib pretending to be a conservative is easy to spot

 

[bigdaddygtr]

I love how dimwits like you project your misguided beliefs on everyone who doesn't think like you. You obviously don't know what a conservative is. Hell, you can't even spell it.

And just who the Hell are you for attacking ANYONE, conservative or not, for wanting the government to control everyone's lives? You want to regulate who can marry who. You want to regulate who can have a child and abort one. WHo can smoke weed in their house and who can't. And you want to regulate who can and cannot have a gun in their house.

In other words, shut up.

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?"

 

[bigdaddygtr]

I thought that was your head over my shoulder in the voting booth. I'm not sure on what basis you can presume to know how I vote. It might make you feel good to paint people with one big brush, when really it's pretty stupid and childish. I mean look at you, your entire argument is based on inaccurate assumptions and you continue to make them about individuals. Say what you want about the hypocrosy of some Republicans, but nothing makes someone look stupider and void of credibility then your argument here.

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

 

[NOBama]

have the two of you set a date yet?
ain't love grand?

Ahhhh... So that's what they mean when they say: A Pair that beats a Full-House.