Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,663,577 times
Reputation: 3587
Advertisements
It appears that the Republicans have figured out one thing if nothing else and that is that the days of conservatism are fast coming to a close in America. The Reagan revolution is finally coming to an end and thank God for that! If you look at the Republicans who are winning, many of the are moderate to liberal- especially on social issues and even somewhat on fiscal issues. McCain has no problem with immigrants, Huckabee likes poor people and Rudy is pro abortion, anti gun and pro gay rights. Reagan is dead and so are his politics.
There's nothing wrong with true conservatism. There's plenty wrong with what some preach as Reagan Conservatism. None of the ones you listed actually do what Reagan said.
Rudy doesn't represent the average Republican. Mike Huckabee probably best represents the average registered Republican of today. Politics are changing, but it is strongly becoming religious vs. secular instead of traditional conservatism and liberalism.
Rudy doesn't represent the average Republican. Mike Huckabee probably best represents the average registered Republican of today. Politics are changing, but it is strongly becoming religious vs. secular instead of traditional conservatism and liberalism.
There is no left or right. There is only up or down. True conservatism recognizes that only by allowing each individual to achieve as much freedom as possible can they move up. The further we move down, the closer we move to authoritarianism. That's where we are headed as a nation today. Take a look at some of the so-called conspiracy theories. Then take a look at what our President is saying in a part of the world we need to control militarily in order to spread "democracy".
Conservatism, Ron Paul just gave back 75,000 to our government(For the people, by the people) because HE IS THE ONLY ONE WHO DID NOT SPEND IT ALL, this is money he was allotted just like the others!!!!
Other than he, there is also Fred Thompson, those are the only 2 true conservatives running anymore.
Huckabees idea that HE can institute A NATIONAL BAN ON SMOKING ARE VERY UNCONSTITUTIONAL and DICTATORIAL IN ESSENCE!!
It is not KING he is running for!!!
Isn't that just a prettier way of saying, "Survival of the fittest"?
No. I never said there would not be safe guards in place for those that need it. From churches to civic groups, charity donation increases in times of need. Take a note from Barry Goldwater. During the Vietnam era, he would fly troops back and forth from Arizona to where they needed to go to get home. Bill & Melinda Smith donate millions each year to help the disadvantaged that would otherwise be living on government handouts. In some areas of the country, it is more profitable for a divorced woman with a child to collect welfare payments from the government than to stay married and raise the child in the kind of home even liberals must agree is the best option, but not the only.
Applying individual liberties to everyone regardless of class, creed, or any other collectivist mentality is the only way to guarantee that each person has the same chance at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To deny someone a chance at success by teaching them to live on a system that breeds the same outcomes over and over is far worse.
McCain has no problem with immigrants, Huckabee likes poor people...
Conservatives have a problem with ILLEGAL immigrants. No one is complaining about legal immigrants.
Conservatives have more compassion for the poor than liberals. Conservatives want to give the poor an hand up not a handout. Liberals poison the poor with never ending handouts in an effort to buy votes and lock people into a cycle of dependence on them.
The reason the Democrats took over Congress in 2006 was two-fold. 1) Republicans abandoned conservative principles. Why vote for a liberal Republican when you can vote for a Democrat? 2) Many of the Democrats who won did so on conservative principles such as opposing illegal immigration and controlling government spending.
The real issue is how many career politicians we have. We should be regularly voting in new people. That is what the Founders had in mind. It would diminish corruption, pork barrel spending, and political grudges that go on for decades.
No. I never said there would not be safe guards in place for those that need it. From churches to civic groups, charity donation increases in times of need.
Yeah, but I've read about those days, in both fact and fiction. Ever read Oliver Twist or see any of the movies? Or anything else Dickens wrote for that matter?
You had a class of very, very, very rich people. A whole lot of poor people, and not much in between.
Sure, churches and civic groups did what they could, but the need was so overwhelming that a lot of peole -- especially children -- starved, died from disease or exposure, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paperhouse
Applying individual liberties to everyone regardless of class, creed, or any other collectivist mentality is the only way to guarantee that each person has the same chance at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To deny someone a chance at success by teaching them to live on a system that breeds the same outcomes over and over is far worse.
The system has problems. No argument from me there. Severe problems. But just sacking the whole system is not the answer. If your house is on fire and the hose you're using to put it out is leaking all over the place, you don't turn off the hose and sit and watch your house burn. You fix (or get a new) hose. The Libertarian ideal seems to be to assert that hoses must be owned and operated only by the rich.
Yeah, but I've read about those days, in both fact and fiction. Ever read Oliver Twist or see any of the movies? Or anything else Dickens wrote for that matter?
You had a class of very, very, very rich people. A whole lot of poor people, and not much in between.
Sure, churches and civic groups did what they could, but the need was so overwhelming that a lot of peole -- especially children -- starved, died from disease or exposure, etc.
And it seems we're racing back to it at WARP SPEED!
Quote:
The system has problems. No argument from me there. Severe problems. But just sacking the whole system is not the answer. If your house is on fire and the hose you're using to put it out is leaking all over the place, you don't turn off the hose and sit and watch your house burn. You fix (or get a new) hose. The Libertarian ideal seems to be to assert that hoses must be owned and operated only by the rich.
No one is advocating "sacking the whole system", except the anarchists. What Ron Paul advocates is returning the system to it's roots, and rejuvenating the character and ideals that made this country great. Is there something inherently wrong with individual liberty and personal responsibility?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.