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.
You're pretty much describing a neocon. That word has a nasty connotation these days, but the mix of policies that you list are pretty much textbook neocon. Setting aside the fact that it has been turned into a nasty word to insult someone with, a big government social conservative is what a neocon is.
Although it's kind of strange how you can be for cutting taxes and against austerity at the same time. Those are kind of mutually exclusive goals.
The reason neocon is a dirty word is because it was the neocons who got us into Iraq.
I agree with mills on many things. Like Mills I am ok with a flat tax; however, like Mills I believe in an inheritance tax so that people start off closer to the same and those who earn it are rewarded more for their effort. Unfortunately, you are about the only Republican that I have heard who is both for a flat tax AND an inheritance tax.
I am not for a flat tax. I believe in taxing economic rents created directly by the result of government. In pioneer states little rent is available so next in line is sin and luxury taxes. In other words the Adam Smith tax system almost exactly.
You've never struck me as a Marxist. In one respect you're at least consistent which is admirable. I may have even replied to you with that sentiment.
Private toll bridges are just fine with me. But I expect the bridge owner to pay for the entire cost of the bridge, including ramps and access to the existing public roadway. Seems fair to me.
You have a problem with land rents because you don't own any land. Get some land.
I am a home owner nearing free and clear and stand in line to get another, free and clear. My argument is not self serving. I don't mind small land owners anyway since small land owners tend to make up for it in improvement avoiding the problem with the commons. It the large estate that is quite fatal.
I have a problem with land rent because it has lead to the death of capitalist systems for thousands of years. All real human progress is threatened by it. We are fortunate that the US does not have as much old money and many of our wealthy are industrious, but generation after generation will operate more and more like old money. I know old money and exactly how it operates. My bother has worked in real estates accounting his whole life . Has worked for several REITs. They are truly worthless central planners and leaches.
Here is a typical real estate discussion. "When can we skim the real economy again? "
I am grateful for the feedback. I was wondering if there was something in the water. You have at least discovered that we are dealing, between the two of us, not a problem with facts or inconsistent logic, but belief. That belief is over what should be the size of the estate.
Actually if I recall the abortion issue wasn't a Rep/Dem issue until Reagan and Ford was in fact pro choice. Not just that but once it became an issue many previous pro choice Republicans switched to pro life and many pro life Democrats switched to pro choice. Interesting to note the last few Republican first ladies were all pro choice (but of course never mentioned this while first lady). The reason many Dems were pro life was because of their religion (most were Catholic). I find this interesting how so many switched to the other side on both sides.
Here is the difference though. Being against abortion is completely different than wanting to make it illegal. This is what some Republicans want to do and why some made some horrifying comments about it. On the other hand some Democrats want to keep it legal no matter what and make it tax payer funded. To me both are extreme points and I disagree with both. However the Republicans who want to make it illegal is a social issue, whereas Democrats wanting it tax payer funded is a fiscal issue.
I do not respect people who are avowedly pro-life because of religion. This is not a theocracy.
I want abortion to be illegal because the fetus at any stage is still a human life with its own unique DNA. Any point picked to mark when it becomes a "person" is completely arbitrary and thus I feel it just shouldn't be allowed. I don't care about religion, I care about the principle that nobody should unnecessarily terminate a human life except the person living that life. I don't support abortion, I don't support the death penalty, I don't support "pulling the plug" unless the person has left instructions to pull the plug. On the other hand, I do support doctor assisted suicide for terminally ill patients and do support abortion when the health of the mother is at stake. I feel the only justification for killing someone else is self defense. And yes that is a question of legislating morality but so is every law against victimizing others so I feel no more guilty for wanting to ban abortion than I do for wanting to ban robbery, rape, or theft. And the "don't want abortion don't get one" and "abortion is against womens rights" arguments" are illegitimate - we've already accepted the legitimacy of restricting peoples' actions in this society when those actions cause harm or death.
Anyway, I don't want to turn this into an abortion debate. I say that to illustrate that the opposite of what you say is also true. You can be pro life without wanting to ban abortion, but you can also want to ban abortion simply as a consequence of it being a violent act in a society that doesn't permit violence, without having the typical "it's immoral" type pro life feelings about abortion in and of itself. I want to ban abortion for the same reason I want to ban credit card fraud. I have no problems with you thinking I am extreme for that if you want. That's a matter of opinion and you're entitled to yours just as everyone else is. But I think that labeling a Republican as an extreme Republican for wanting to ban abortion is not right. Because at that point your reference point shifts from your own opinion to the standards of the Republican party. And while banning abortion may be extreme to you, it is mainstream within the Republican party.
You're pretty much describing a neocon. That word has a nasty connotation these days, but the mix of policies that you list are pretty much textbook neocon. Setting aside the fact that it has been turned into a nasty word to insult someone with, a big government social conservative is what a neocon is.
Although it's kind of strange how you can be for cutting taxes and against austerity at the same time. Those are kind of mutually exclusive goals.
I'm not a neocon. I'm against war in all cases except when we are attacked directly by a military
I would agree about H.W. Bush, but not George W. Bush. Bob dole is no longer in politics, Mitt Romney is a flip flopper and McCain has multiple personality disorder.
As far as the ones on the board, I have not seen many.
GW Bush was a big government, spendaholic, there was not much Bush would not compromise on, except when it came to his moral religious views and fighting his "war on terror."
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.
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.
