PDA

View Full Version : A Libertarian Defense of Social Conservatism



Constitutionally Speaking
11-24-2008, 06:57 AM
Social conservatism is taking a beating lately. Not only did it lose in the recent elections, it is being blamed for the Republican losses. If only the religious right would get off the Republican Party's back, the GOP could win like it is supposed to again. I beg to differ.


//////SNIP////////




When the day comes that the only thing between me and liberty are some Bible-quoting know-it-alls, I'll reconsider. But right now, there are a lot of things between me and liberty, and the "religious right" is not one of them. In fact, I see them voting for more liberty, not less. If the Republican Party ever decides it really wants to be the party of liberty, rather than the slower-road-to-socialism party, I'll gladly join the religious right there.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/a_libertarian_defense_of_socia.html



The article is really worth a read.

wilbur
11-24-2008, 09:52 AM
I have to take issue with this article a little bit...

First off, how about this disingenuous little nugget:



Abortion, sodomy, and pornography are now all Constitutional rights. However, praying in public school is outlawed, based on that same Constitution.


Again praying in public school IS NOT outlawed. And last time I checked, abortion, sodomy and pornography sessions are still frowned upon activities for the classroom or playground. The kids can organize themselves and pray, however.

This whole prayer thing is such a farce. I assume most people who make a big deal about it do actually take the time to teach their kids about their religion, and teach them to pray. So what is the use of guided school prayer if not to indoctrinate children whose parents have chosen not teach them about religion and prayer? How is that not stepping on the liberty of others?

I somewhat agree with his points overall, but I think in the past 8 years social conservatives have displayed a troubling zeal for letting the government usurp civil liberties in the name of the war on terror... the war on drugs for even longer than that.... this isnt even getting into all the other social conservative pet issues like stem cells... so its hard to see his point about the left getting in the way of liberty more than the social conservative. Social conservatives are right when it comes to taxes and guns and thats about it, IMHO. As for choosing the worst of the two evils (liberal or social consrevative)... well it aint easy..

xavierob82
11-24-2008, 10:30 AM
The only aspect of conservatism of redeeming value is fiscal conservatism.

The whole point of social conservatism is to get the gullible bible-bangers and low-information voters to vote Republican, since when it comes to fiscal policy, the two parties really aren't much different. As a matter of fact, when you compare side-by-side the Clinton and Bush Administrations, it the Democrats who are the real fiscal conservatives.

In other words, without the bible-banging sheep and those who think the Earth is 6000 years old, there would be no such thing as the Republican Party.

Molon Labe
11-24-2008, 10:59 AM
The only aspect of conservatism of redeeming value is fiscal conservatism.

The whole point of social conservatism is to get the gullible bible-bangers and low-information voters to vote Republican, since when it comes to fiscal policy, the two parties really aren't much different. As a matter of fact, when you compare side-by-side the Clinton and Bush Administrations, it the Democrats who are the real fiscal conservatives.

In other words, without the bible-banging sheep and those who think the Earth is 6000 years old, there would be no such thing as the Republican Party.


? The Christian community routinely voted Democrat prior to Reagan. It was the Southern baptists that were responsible for the Civil rights movements. :confused:
Bush is conservative in name only. His policies resembled liberal socialism...which is what we got for 8 years.

Constitutionally Speaking
11-24-2008, 02:25 PM
? The Christian community routinely voted Democrat prior to Reagan. It was the Southern baptists that were responsible for the Civil rights movements. :confused:
Bush is conservative in name only. His policies resembled liberal socialism...which is what we got for 8 years.

Funny how they miss that.

We conservatives have been howling at Bush's fiscal policies since he was elected. The only thing he really got our support on was the WOT and taxes.


That is what is so ridiculous about Obama's call for change. He simply is going to do MORE of everything Bush did EXCEPT what Bush did right!!!!

BadCat
11-24-2008, 02:31 PM
The only aspect of conservatism of redeeming value is fiscal conservatism.

The whole point of social conservatism is to get the gullible bible-bangers and low-information voters to vote Republican, since when it comes to fiscal policy, the two parties really aren't much different. As a matter of fact, when you compare side-by-side the Clinton and Bush Administrations, it the Democrats who are the real fiscal conservatives.

In other words, without the bible-banging sheep and those who think the Earth is 6000 years old, there would be no such thing as the Republican Party.

Wow, tamponboy, you sure like to harp on this little error.
I'm a "Republican" (by registration anyway), I think the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and I've never read a bible.

That kind of makes you look like a broad brushing IDIOT, don't it?

Molon Labe
11-24-2008, 03:34 PM
Thanks for posting CS
Great article about the state we're in.
I especially feel similar to the this last part.




When the day comes that the only thing between me and liberty are some Bible-quoting know-it-alls, I'll reconsider. But right now, there are a lot of things between me and liberty, and the "religious right" is not one of them. In fact, I see them voting for more liberty, not less. If the Republican Party ever decides it really wants to be the party of liberty, rather than the slower-road-to-socialism party, I'll gladly join the religious right there.

marinejcksn
11-24-2008, 04:51 PM
"When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."

-Barry Goldwater :D

Constitutionally Speaking
11-24-2008, 08:36 PM
"When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."

-Barry Goldwater :D


There are a few of those, but they really are few and far between.

Constitutionally Speaking
11-24-2008, 08:37 PM
Thanks for posting CS
Great article about the state we're in.
I especially feel similar to the this last part.

I liked that part also, but I have chosen to hold my nose and support them in hopes of slowing the rush to socialism - hopefully giving us conservatives enough time to get our shit together and reclaim our party.

marinejcksn
11-24-2008, 09:21 PM
I liked that part also, but I have chosen to hold my nose and support them in hopes of slowing the rush to socialism - hopefully giving us conservatives enough time to get our shit together and reclaim our party.

It's really our only move at this point. I've been listening to the Great One a lot out here and he's had a lot of callers lately asking how we can get together and stop Obama and he keeps saying over and over there's really nothing we can do. It sucks to hear, but they've got control of Congress and with the idiot repukes they're pretty much fillibuster proof. We just have to pull our act together, get back some seats in 2010 and put real strong candidates on the front lines.

noonwitch
11-25-2008, 12:36 PM
You know what we liberals say about libertarians? They are just social conservatives who want to smoke pot, avoid taxes and amass caches of assault rifles and ammo.

Molon Labe
11-25-2008, 12:49 PM
You know what we liberals say about libertarians? They are just social conservatives who want to smoke pot, avoid taxes and amass caches of assault rifles and ammo.

Ya know that's bullshit...right? :)

marinejcksn
11-25-2008, 10:41 PM
Ya know that's bullshit...right? :)

I dunno....I bet Penn & Teller have a bitchin' assault rifle collection. :p:cool::D

Troll
11-25-2008, 11:43 PM
I liked that part also, but I have chosen to hold my nose and support them in hopes of slowing the rush to socialism - hopefully giving us conservatives enough time to get our shit together and reclaim our party.

CS, I very much respect your opinion, and I'd like you to delve into your perspective on this subject a bit further.

To my way of thinking, holding your nose and voting for anybody does nothing but exacerbate the problem. Shouldn't we, as voters, have a 'line in the sand' mentality for our elected officials where we say "if you/your party does X, you no longer represent our interests and we will stop voting for you"? Haven't the Republicans crossed that line several times already?

My point is, that you, as a voter, can plainly see that the Republicans are taking us in the same direction as the Democrats. Why should they stop if they can count on our continued support? The only thing a politician has to fear is having people withhold their votes. Don't you think showing the Republican party that they can no longer count on the conservative vote is a better course? They have blown at least two opportunities in the last 15 years to get Congress on the right track, and all they did and continue to do is spend money and grow the government. Are we really going to fall for a 'smaller government, less spending' line when they try to regain their lost seats in 2010? Haven't we learned better?

You've said that conservatives need to "get our shit together", and I agree with you. I'd really like to know what we need to do, but I just can't see that 'continue voting Republican' is the right answer. Haven't we done that already? Isn't it time to try something else?

marinejcksn
11-26-2008, 01:36 AM
You've said that conservatives need to "get our shit together", and I agree with you. I'd really like to know what we need to do, but I just can't see that 'continue voting Republican' is the right answer. Haven't we done that already? Isn't it time to try something else?

You're damn right Troll. Anybody who votes party line every time and wonders why the R's keep losing is delusional. For crying out loud the Democrat was more of a Conservative then Lindsey Graham this time and people still re-elected that idiot. The guy behind Amnesty, which the grassroots helped squash was voted in again because repukes think that R = Conservative without looking at the issues. Same thing with McCain, he's finished and we need to toss him out asap too. We wanna take back this country and bring her back from the brink? Then we gotta stop nominating moderates & Liberal Repukes.

Constitutionally Speaking
11-26-2008, 06:55 AM
CS, I very much respect your opinion, and I'd like you to delve into your perspective on this subject a bit further.

To my way of thinking, holding your nose and voting for anybody does nothing but exacerbate the problem. Shouldn't we, as voters, have a 'line in the sand' mentality for our elected officials where we say "if you/your party does X, you no longer represent our interests and we will stop voting for you"? Haven't the Republicans crossed that line several times already?

My point is, that you, as a voter, can plainly see that the Republicans are taking us in the same direction as the Democrats. Why should they stop if they can count on our continued support? The only thing a politician has to fear is having people withhold their votes. Don't you think showing the Republican party that they can no longer count on the conservative vote is a better course? They have blown at least two opportunities in the last 15 years to get Congress on the right track, and all they did and continue to do is spend money and grow the government. Are we really going to fall for a 'smaller government, less spending' line when they try to regain their lost seats in 2010? Haven't we learned better?

You've said that conservatives need to "get our shit together", and I agree with you. I'd really like to know what we need to do, but I just can't see that 'continue voting Republican' is the right answer. Haven't we done that already? Isn't it time to try something else?


The reason I hold my nose and vote for the Republicans is because we MUST at least slow the express train we are on toward socialism. Allowing the Democrats to hold office accelerates that train while voting for Republicans does so to a lesser degree and in some cases, it does slow it.


The solution is - as always - at the grass roots and nominating levels. We need to make sure that in the primaries we nominate the CONSERVATIVE candidate. Nothing burns me more than the national party helping to elect people like Arlen Spector when we had a bona-fide conservative opposing him in the nominating process.

It bothers me that our coalition of interest groups seem to demand perfection or they won't vote. I understand WHY, but it is my OPINION that they are making a mistake. It leads to us electing the Obama's, the Clintons and the Carters to powerful positions. I don't think we can make an argument that those victories for the Dems have led to a more conservative government. Even the congressional gains we had (with the POSSIBLE exception those after Carter) led to the election of milquetoast conservatives that did very little to slow the train.

We need to give our energy, our time and contribute to the organizations that EDUCATE our kids (and adults for that matter) on the TRUTH about our Constitution. The Heritage foundation and the CATO institute are very good places to start but there are many smaller more local groups that also do a good job of this and their effect is considerable. We also need to inform ourselves on the issues but more importantly we need to learn to frame the issues in a manner that reaches people. We need to TALK to people more often and in a better manner. Often we simply dump facts on people instead of engaging them in conversation based on what is important to THEM. We conservatives need to read "How to win friends and influence people" and LIVE IT. We need to take a few courses on persuasion - leading people to reach the right conclusions THEMSELVES instead of browbeating them and turning them off. We need to win their HEARTS. Salespeople know that most decisions are made emotionally and rational criteria are often only used to back up the emotional decision that was already made. We need to forget we are conservative and appeal to the emotional level instead of relying completely on the rational. We need to do this on issues other than National Security and abortion. The Dems have figured this out and everything they do is framed as to the emotional impact on the individual. (they just lie about the real impact) We need to do the same - except we need to explain the REAL impact on the individual.

We need to know WHY it is better for the average person to live under a Constitutional government on ALL of the issues. We need to be able to explain WHY welfare is harmful to the recipient of welfare as well as to the nation as a whole. We need to be able to articulate WHY the progressive tax rate HARMS the average Joe and defeat the bullshit "tax cuts for the rich" envy play the Dems use. We need to know WHY and be able to communicate it articulately.

On the elections, again the solution is to fight like hell at the local level to know the REAL conservative and to get that person elected to the local positions. That will provide us with the future candidates we need to run for State and National elections. When we get to state senators and congresspersons - we need to show more interest here and understand just WHO is running and WHAT their understandings of the role of government is. When we get to the US congress elections, we need to VOTE in the primaries for those who have PROVEN they understand the Constitutional limits placed on the federal govt instead of voting for the incumbent - even if that incumbent is a powerful Republican.

Once the general elections starts, however, we need to support the lesser of two evils as a stalling technique.

To put it in military terms (which is perhaps, a very stupid thing for me to do), we need to perform a rear-guard action until we can bring up re-enforcements.

Constitutionally Speaking
11-26-2008, 07:14 AM
You're damn right Troll. Anybody who votes party line every time and wonders why the R's keep losing is delusional. For crying out loud the Democrat was more of a Conservative then Lindsey Graham this time and people still re-elected that idiot. The guy behind Amnesty, which the grassroots helped squash was voted in again because repukes think that R = Conservative without looking at the issues. Same thing with McCain, he's finished and we need to toss him out asap too. We wanna take back this country and bring her back from the brink? Then we gotta stop nominating moderates & Liberal Repukes.


I agree with the sentiment here and often DO vote third party in local elections, and even state elections.

If the Democrat were REALLY more conservative in PHILOSOPHY, not just on an issue or two, I would vote for that Dem.

Usually though, the positions are simply crafted for public consumption and are meaningless.

We need to find out the philosophy that the candidate bases his opinions on. Things like the ROLE of the federal government.

Issue positions are simply misleading and are developed by polling institutions for the purposes of finding a wedge to use against an opponent.

Understanding WHY a candidate takes a position is FAR more revealing.

I don't know Graham that well, but based on what I DO know, he is simply basing his decisions on business concerns rather than Constitutional concerns. He does not seem to have a real heart felt set of core principles - just a collection of policy opinions he thinks sound good.

Constitutionally Speaking
11-26-2008, 08:13 AM
A thing on Pelosi and "conservative" Democrats.

She has been VERY smart with this. In conservative areas, the Dems have recruited candidates that hold conservative records on some hot button issues and pushed the hell out of those positions in the elections against the Republican to show that they are not that liberal.

They allow them to vote against the party on those issues as long as the vote in congress is not close and they support the party positions on other issues.

Molon Labe
11-26-2008, 10:20 AM
I dunno....I bet Penn & Teller have a bitchin' assault rifle collection. :p:cool::D

I guess I get tired of those that think some Conservatives who empathize with the Libertarian elements are all fringes. Like we all want to smoke dope, make our cache of AK's fully automatic and go to the whore house on payday.
I have never desired or needed a prostitute...(the one time I had the chance during basic....I turned it down), I have never smoked dope....and I only own about 3 weapons presently. ;)

I know few Libertarians that do any of this stuff in excess. I do know plenty thatt understand civil rights and limited government better than many so called conservatives claim to.
People forget how close cousins Conservatives and Libertarians really are. People like Robert Taft, Russell Kirk, Goldwater and Reagan....That used to be the heart of the Republican party.
It was a mistake to purge them .....The last 8 years proved this.

Goldwater
11-26-2008, 10:46 AM
Its not so much that Libertarians got purged, it is that no one in power who made those Libertarian smaller government promises ever delivered, this included Reagan.

Constitutionally Speaking
11-26-2008, 11:08 AM
I guess I get tired of those that think some Conservatives who empathize with the Libertarian elements are all fringes. Like we all want to smoke dope, make our cache of AK's fully automatic and go to the whore house on payday.
I have never desired or needed a prostitute...(the one time I had the chance during basic....I turned it down), I have never smoked dope....and I only own about 3 weapons presently. ;)

I know few Libertarians that do any of this stuff in excess. I do know plenty thatt understand civil rights and limited government better than many so called conservatives claim to.
People forget how close cousins Conservatives and Libertarians really are. People like Robert Taft, Russell Kirk, Goldwater and Reagan....That used to be the heart of the Republican party.
It was a mistake to purge them .....The last 8 years proved this.

Here Here!!!

Constitutionally Speaking
11-26-2008, 11:14 AM
Its not so much that Libertarians got purged, it is that no one in power who made those Libertarian smaller government promises ever delivered, this included Reagan.


Reagan did a magnificent job considering the congress he had to work with. In fact in real terms, Reagan DID cut government spending - EXCEPT the military.

Given the state of our armed forces at that time, he simply COULDN'T cut that. I forget the actual percentages but close to 70% of our equipment was not even operable due to the lack of spare parts. Our personnel were grossly underpaid (not that they EVER are properly compensated) and the housing they lived in was not acceptable. Reagan DID spend much more for those areas as well as for new weapons systems that were needed.

(those weapons systems by the way are what gave us the "peace dividend" that President Clinton squandered)

Molon Labe
11-26-2008, 11:16 AM
Its not so much that Libertarians got purged, it is that no one in power who made those Libertarian smaller government promises ever delivered, this included Reagan.

I see that. Reagan certainly did not deliver what could have been a decisive blow to the left.
What I have obseved is that the Libertarian party was being more and more isolated by the time it formed a party in the early 70's. Many seemed disgruntled by the Repubs.
What I specifically mean by purges...is how voices like National Review started throwing out Birch republican's and then managed to shed the Paleo's when they ousted strong voices in men like Buchanan and Raimondo in favor of Krauthammers and Frums. Men who dissented with a preemptive war in Iraq had no place in the conservative movement I guess. The Republican party will figure it out I guess or else keep losing elections or disintegrate .

Here's Frums 03' article. It's neocon B.S. As if people who dissented against how 9-11 was handled are unpatriotic.

http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum031903.asp


Reagan did a magnificent job considering the congress he had to work with. In fact in real terms, Reagan DID cut government spending - EXCEPT the military.

His buildup was necessary.....All spending needs to be considered today..

Molon Labe
11-26-2008, 02:38 PM
The reason I hold my nose and vote for the Republicans is because we MUST at least slow the express train we are on toward socialism. Allowing the Democrats to hold office accelerates that train while voting for Republicans does so to a lesser degree and in some cases, it does slow it.

Slow it down?
I just don't see that anymore. With the current kind of conservatism who needs the Socialists? It's just a different type of socialism and it's speeding along quite nicely.


NCLB - doubled the Education budget to around 50 billion

Medicare Prescription benefit program - 400 billion in total entitlements and increased the control of insurance and pharmaceuticals over the individual's.

DOHS - The creation of yet another Federal institution that will not soon go away with an annual budget of around 60 billion

Iraq /Afghanistan GWOT - will not be paid off in my children's children's lifetime.



I'll bet about 95% Republican congressmen were complicit in voting for every single act above.

There's an old saying that "war is the health of the state". Well...the "State" isn't a conservative value.
Couple that with an understanding that Socialism can only occur through collectivism and collectivism is a derivative of state power.... it's clear that these philosophies are leftist in nature and that Republican's tend to have been acting that way for some time now. I repeat. You can't convince me that the way we have allowed growing of the Federal government in any capacity is conservative. Nor is it patriotic...or constitutional.

marinejcksn
11-26-2008, 05:14 PM
I know few Libertarians that do any of this stuff in excess. I do know plenty thatt understand civil rights and limited government better than many so called conservatives claim to.
People forget how close cousins Conservatives and Libertarians really are. People like Robert Taft, Russell Kirk, Goldwater and Reagan....That used to be the heart of the Republican party.
It was a mistake to purge them .....The last 8 years proved this.

Exactly right my friend. I think too many people forget Reagan saying the heart of Conservatism is Libertarianism. Those were all kickass men you named too, by the way. Goldwater said towards the end of his life to Bob Dole that "we're the new Liberals of the Republican Party. Can you imagine that?" and I think it speaks volumes as to where some have taken us too far.

This is where I tend to think of my views as "Conservatarian". I bite off on the Libertarian Party on just about everything but I think there are limits, where I'm conservative on it. Ending partial birth abortion, securing the border and such. Most of the "big ticket" Right wing issues I could give a hoot about, like gay marriage. Which, doesn't win over much of the good graces of some of my family or church. :o

Goldwater is a personal hero of mine. I think if more people took the time to read up on the man's life (Pure Goldwater is an amazing book) they'd find a common sense, realistic approach to Conservative & Libertarian beliefs from quite possibly the most honest and real person in Washington since the Founding Fathers. He had a way with connecting to people that's lost to the majority of politicians these days; we need to get that energy and heart back.

THE RESISTANCE
11-26-2008, 05:25 PM
Slow it down?
I just don't see that anymore. With the current kind of conservatism who needs the Socialists? It's just a different type of socialism and it's speeding along quite nicely.


NCLB - doubled the Education budget to around 50 billion

Medicare Prescription benefit program - 400 billion in total entitlements and increased the control of insurance and pharmaceuticals over the individual's.

DOHS - The creation of yet another Federal institution that will not soon go away with an annual budget of around 60 billion

Iraq /Afghanistan GWOT - will not be paid off in my children's children's lifetime.



I'll bet about 95% Republican congressmen were complicit in voting for every single act above.

There's an old saying that "war is the health of the state". Well...the "State" isn't a conservative value.
Couple that with an understanding that Socialism can only occur through collectivism and collectivism is a derivative of state power.... it's clear that these philosophies are leftist in nature and that Republican's tend to have been acting that way for some time now. I repeat. You can't convince me that the way we have allowed growing of the Federal government in any capacity is conservative. Nor is it patriotic...or constitutional.



The combined tyrannys waged against this nation, its people,and on their libertys, and freedoms from the two major partys will fall on the shoulders of the next generation.

It is all there, these tyrannical injustices for they will have to pay the taxes to pay for the governments mistakes, the loss from the different partys mistakes, the loss of libertys, and those suppose to be their representatives against these robberys have done nothing more than grudgingly accepted it. Those representatives are the people of today and yesterday.

Samuel Adams would be ashamed to call us his countrymen.

EricMartin
11-26-2008, 05:54 PM
Exactly right my friend. I think too many people forget Reagan saying the heart of Conservatism is Libertarianism. Those were all kickass men you named too, by the way. Goldwater said towards the end of his life to Bob Dole that "we're the new Liberals of the Republican Party. Can you imagine that?" and I think it speaks volumes as to where some have taken us too far.

This is where I tend to think of my views as "Conservatarian". I bite off on the Libertarian Party on just about everything but I think there are limits, where I'm conservative on it. Ending partial birth abortion, securing the border and such. Most of the "big ticket" Right wing issues I could give a hoot about, like gay marriage. Which, doesn't win over much of the good graces of some of my family or church. :o

Goldwater is a personal hero of mine. I think if more people took the time to read up on the man's life (Pure Goldwater is an amazing book) they'd find a common sense, realistic approach to Conservative & Libertarian beliefs from quite possibly the most honest and real person in Washington since the Founding Fathers. He had a way with connecting to people that's lost to the majority of politicians these days; we need to get that energy and heart back.

Very well said – I am in absolute agreement. :)

Constitutionally Speaking
11-26-2008, 08:29 PM
Slow it down?
I just don't see that anymore. With the current kind of conservatism who needs the Socialists? It's just a different type of socialism and it's speeding along quite nicely.


I don't consider George W. Bush to even be a conservative. He is what used to be called a liberal pro-defense Democrat.



NCLB - doubled the Education budget to around 50 billion

See above.


Medicare Prescription benefit program - 400 billion in total entitlements and increased the control of insurance and pharmaceuticals over the individual's.


See above.


DOHS - The creation of yet another Federal institution that will not soon go away with an annual budget of around 60 billion

See above


Iraq /Afghanistan GWOT - will not be paid off in my children's children's lifetime.

They would be if it were not for the rest of the spending and with economic growth. I see this as one of the few things our government SHOULD do, so perhaps we disagree on this issue.


I'll bet about 95% Republican congressmen were complicit in voting for every single act above.

We are not in disagreement on this, the Republican party is NOT conservative. That was the point of my earlier diatribe. We need to toss out the non conservatives in the PRIMARIES and educate people on WHY our country and people individually are better off under conservative governments.


There's an old saying that "war is the health of the state". Well...the "State" isn't a conservative value.
Couple that with an understanding that Socialism can only occur through collectivism and collectivism is a derivative of state power.... it's clear that these philosophies are leftist in nature and that Republican's tend to have been acting that way for some time now. I repeat. You can't convince me that the way we have allowed growing of the Federal government in any capacity is conservative. Nor is it patriotic...or constitutional.


Why would I try to convince you otherwise? I agree with you. I just think we need to work from within to CHANGE the party. Allowing Democrats to continue to win elections will put the opportunity for change in our national direction out of reach.

Molon Labe
11-26-2008, 08:51 PM
They would be if it were not for the rest of the spending and with economic growth. I see this as one of the few things our government SHOULD do, so perhaps we disagree on this issue.

No I don't think we disagree. Defense is a constitutional mandate for government. I simply believe it can be quality and quantity with a defense budget similar to what we had in the 80's that would suffice. Meaning efficiency and not spending on defense whatever the talking head say we need.
There is absolutely no reason the U.S. should account for nearly half of the worlds defense expenditures in men and material. Which is another reason I do not fear another world power as some do on this board.

http://www.globalissues.org/i/military/country-distribution-2006.png


We are not in disagreement on this, the Republican party is NOT conservative. That was the point of my earlier diatribe. We need to toss out the non conservatives in the PRIMARIES and educate people on WHY our country and people individually are better off under conservative governments.

Local Republican parties are not prone to do this as I have found out in the last 8 years. Even when you hit them square in the jaw with their hypocrisy.

THE RESISTANCE
11-27-2008, 08:48 AM
No I don't think we disagree. Defense is a constitutional mandate for government. I simply believe it can be quality and quantity with a defense budget similar to what we had in the 80's that would suffice. Meaning efficiency and not spending on defense whatever the talking head say we need.
There is absolutely no reason the U.S. should account for nearly half of the worlds defense expenditures in men and material. Which is another reason I do not fear another world power as some do on this board.

http://www.globalissues.org/i/military/country-distribution-2006.png



Local Republican parties are not prone to do this as I have found out in the last 8 years. Even when you hit them square in the jaw with their hypocrisy .

Local governments, it seems even under Republicans are just as tax and taking, of property rights as Democrats. So local parties are far removed from conservative principles.


It is deeper though. If the people and that would be those that become party leaders and elected officials are taught things, contrary to this nations founding principles from schooling and from everyday life then that is what they carry. They carry it into their partys and into their offices and they carry it to the next generations. If you are only taught or not taught truths, then untruths then become truth, non-reality reality, mistakes of philosophy changes to acceptence of those mistakes in that philosophy for it is not understood in the beginning fully. Lines blurr and crossover defeats gain ground.