CDZ What is "Conservative"- Conservatives please

[protectionist]

* Maximum individual liberty
* Minimal government involvement

I think that has noting to do with Conservatism. What you suggest is Reaganism (which is not Conservatism)

I think you don't have a clue. In fact, I know it

I think YOU don't have a clue. In fact I know it. OK. Let's go one on one. My previous post (# 40) is my first opening shot.

Also note what I said in Post # 38 >> "Keep going with a small, weak govt, and before you know it, you may be looking at an Islamic state."

Minimum govt involvement could include restriction of FBI and other law enforcement from monitoring in mosques. You want that ?

I say give us more Jack Bauers.

 

[airplanemechanic]

No conservative that I know, and certainly no libertarian such as myself, would support eavesdropping on anyone without a warrant.

I don't care WHO they are. So yea, I oppose it, but I'm not a conservative because conservatives behave like liberals now. I'm a libertarian.

My belief is simple: If its not in the constitution the gov't has no right to do it and if its not in the constitution the citizen doesn't have that right.

Period.

End of conversation./end thread

 

[Circe]

I view myself as a conservative, but I am not opposed to abortion: the more the better, considering how grossly overpopulated the Earth is.

I don't think conservatism connects much with libertarianism, though I think I'm that, too. Where maybe they come together is peculiar sex issues like men marrying men, or men calling themselves women, falsely. In a way, I'm okay with that as a Libertarian --- as a conservative I don't think it should be law that forces wedding cake bakers or wedding venues to service such very strange people if they don't care to! I think people can do peculiar things privately, but if they sue Smith College because they want to be considered a woman for entry even though they are not, that goes too far. Libertarianism surely doesn't require everyone be FORCED to conform --- that's the opposite of Libertarianism, and certainly doesn't connect with conservatism.

Forcing everyone to conform to new, intrusive radical ideas is totalitarianism.

 

[FA_Q2]

* Maximum individual liberty
* Minimal government involvement

The problem i have with this statement is that 'conservatives' do not seem to support the above as soon as you start to get into 'immorality.'

Conservatives have abandoned the idea of maximal freedom and liberty for the ideal of enforcing moral standards that require massive government involvement.

You don't get morality without law enforcement which is both conservatism and massive govt involvement. This is where the small, weak govt, Reaganists go wrong. Keep going with a small, weak govt, and before you know it, you may be looking at an Islamic state.

That might be one of the most asinine things ever posted here.

You essentially just said that if we keep going with a small and 'weak' (though that term is NOT correct) government we will end up with a massive and overpowering government. One does not lead to the other. The exact opposite is the case though - advocating for a government that defines and enforces YOUR motility will eventually lead to one that strays from such and starts advocating its own. You know, exactly like ISIL

 

[FA_Q2]

* Maximum individual liberty
* Minimal government involvement

I think that has noting to do with Conservatism. What you suggest is Reaganism (which is not Conservatism)

I think you don't have a clue. In fact, I know it

I think YOU don't have a clue. In fact I know it. OK. Let's go one on one. My previous post (# 40) is my first opening shot.

Also note what I said in Post # 38 >> "Keep going with a small, weak govt, and before you know it, you may be looking at an Islamic state."

Minimum govt involvement could include restriction of FBI and other law enforcement from monitoring in mosques. You want that ?

I say give us more Jack Bauers.

limited monitoring of mosques?

And when the left wrests control of the government from the right (as is inevitable) and decides that it really is the churches that need monitoring that is all kosher too - right?

Of perhaps you missed it when Napalitano defined returning VETS as the largest terrorist threat the nation faces.

 

[protectionist]

No conservative that I know, and certainly no libertarian such as myself, would support eavesdropping on anyone without a warrant.

I don't care WHO they are. So yea, I oppose it, but I'm not a conservative because conservatives behave like liberals now. I'm a libertarian.

My belief is simple: If its not in the constitution the gov't has no right to do it and if its not in the constitution the citizen doesn't have that right.

Period.

End of conversation./end thread

1. Who said anything about not having a warrant ?

2, It's not in the Constitution about me playing my guitar, watching the TV show 24, or feeding homeless cats (or a million other things). So citizens don't have the right to do these things ?

 

[protectionist]

* Maximum individual liberty
* Minimal government involvement

The problem i have with this statement is that 'conservatives' do not seem to support the above as soon as you start to get into 'immorality.'

Conservatives have abandoned the idea of maximal freedom and liberty for the ideal of enforcing moral standards that require massive government involvement.

You don't get morality without law enforcement which is both conservatism and massive govt involvement. This is where the small, weak govt, Reaganists go wrong. Keep going with a small, weak govt, and before you know it, you may be looking at an Islamic state.

That might be one of the most asinine things ever posted here.

You essentially just said that if we keep going with a small and 'weak' (though that term is NOT correct) government we will end up with a massive and overpowering government. One does not lead to the other. The exact opposite is the case though - advocating for a government that defines and enforces YOUR motility will eventually lead to one that strays from such and starts advocating its own. You know, exactly like ISIL

NO, I did NOT say that. YOU said that. And simply having a big, strong govt with a strong, capable national defense, does NOT lead to something like ISIS. In fact, quite the opposite is true. It is the small, weak, power-lacking govt that leads to that. I'd say your post is the assinine one (and you didn't even spell the word right)

 

[protectionist]

* Maximum individual liberty
* Minimal government involvement

I think that has noting to do with Conservatism. What you suggest is Reaganism (which is not Conservatism)

I think you don't have a clue. In fact, I know it

I think YOU don't have a clue. In fact I know it. OK. Let's go one on one. My previous post (# 40) is my first opening shot.

Also note what I said in Post # 38 >> "Keep going with a small, weak govt, and before you know it, you may be looking at an Islamic state."

Minimum govt involvement could include restriction of FBI and other law enforcement from monitoring in mosques. You want that ?

I say give us more Jack Bauers.

limited monitoring of mosques?

And when the left wrests control of the government from the right (as is inevitable) and decides that it really is the churches that need monitoring that is all kosher too - right?

Of perhaps you missed it when Napalitano defined returning VETS as the largest terrorist threat the nation faces.

So you're basing how our national defense show operate, on a fear of what liberals might do. That limits you to doing little or nothing to protect the American people. The govt should play IT'S game for national defense, not lie in fear of Islamists, and their liberal running dogs. Once you start doing that, you're in their handcuffs.

I say give us more Jack Bauers.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

* Maximum individual liberty
* Minimal government involvement

I think that has noting to do with Conservatism. What you suggest is Reaganism (which is not Conservatism)

I think you don't have a clue. In fact, I know it

I think YOU don't have a clue. In fact I know it. OK. Let's go one on one. My previous post (# 40) is my first opening shot.

Also note what I said in Post # 38 >> "Keep going with a small, weak govt, and before you know it, you may be looking at an Islamic state."

Minimum govt involvement could include restriction of FBI and other law enforcement from monitoring in mosques. You want that ?

I say give us more Jack Bauers.

Yeah all this monitoring and violation of our privacy rights and the 2 brothers bombed the Boston Marathon even after Putin warned Obama about them.

What exactly are we getting

 

[protectionist]

* Maximum individual liberty
* Minimal government involvement

I think that has noting to do with Conservatism. What you suggest is Reaganism (which is not Conservatism)

I think you don't have a clue. In fact, I know it

I think YOU don't have a clue. In fact I know it. OK. Let's go one on one. My previous post (# 40) is my first opening shot.

Also note what I said in Post # 38 >> "Keep going with a small, weak govt, and before you know it, you may be looking at an Islamic state."

Minimum govt involvement could include restriction of FBI and other law enforcement from monitoring in mosques. You want that ?

I say give us more Jack Bauers.

limited monitoring of mosques?

And when the left wrests control of the government from the right (as is inevitable) and decides that it really is the churches that need monitoring that is all kosher too - right?

Of perhaps you missed it when Napalitano defined returning VETS as the largest terrorist threat the nation faces.

So you're basing how our national defense show operate, on a fear of what liberals might do. That limits you to doing little or nothing to protect the American people. The govt should play IT'S game for national defense, not lie in fear of Islamists, and their liberal running dogs. Once you start doing that, you're in their handcuffs.

* Maximum individual liberty
* Minimal government involvement

I think that has noting to do with Conservatism. What you suggest is Reaganism (which is not Conservatism)

I think you don't have a clue. In fact, I know it

I think YOU don't have a clue. In fact I know it. OK. Let's go one on one. My previous post (# 40) is my first opening shot.

Also note what I said in Post # 38 >> "Keep going with a small, weak govt, and before you know it, you may be looking at an Islamic state."

Minimum govt involvement could include restriction of FBI and other law enforcement from monitoring in mosques. You want that ?

I say give us more Jack Bauers.

Yeah all this monitoring and violation of our privacy rights and the 2 brothers bombed the Boston Marathon even after Putin warned Obama about them.

What exactly are we getting

National INsecurity. I say give us more Jack Bauers.

 

[FA_Q2]

* Maximum individual liberty
* Minimal government involvement

I think that has noting to do with Conservatism. What you suggest is Reaganism (which is not Conservatism)

I think you don't have a clue. In fact, I know it

I think YOU don't have a clue. In fact I know it. OK. Let's go one on one. My previous post (# 40) is my first opening shot.

Also note what I said in Post # 38 >> "Keep going with a small, weak govt, and before you know it, you may be looking at an Islamic state."

Minimum govt involvement could include restriction of FBI and other law enforcement from monitoring in mosques. You want that ?

I say give us more Jack Bauers.

Yeah all this monitoring and violation of our privacy rights and the 2 brothers bombed the Boston Marathon even after Putin warned Obama about them.

What exactly are we getting

Nothing and you will never get anything from violating our rights other than fewer and fewer rights.

We should never have opened that box but now that the government has that power it will NOT give it up easily. It is not ISIL that is going to come here and take our rights from us like protectionist fears - it is our own government that dies such.