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.
What you are advocating is a society with no laws, rules, judgments and consequences. I suggest a place like Somalia for you.
What's up with the drugs? I don't think I have advocated one way or the other. I guess it's ok with you if drug dealers sell to children then, right? I mean, who has the right to pass judgment?
I don't eat rabbit.
If its legal, then it'll be sold in the stores the same as alcohol and tobacco. I think we do a fairly good job of regulating the sells to minors by requiring identification. The keeping illegal of drugs is the thing that keeps the drug dealer in business that sells them to kids.
As far as the rabbit thing, it was just something I was saying. You brought up beastiality, I see nothing wrong with it, but its not for me.
You said that conservatives were all about personal liberty, I'm just blowing that concept out of the water. Goldwater Republicans were about personal liberty, but that group went buh bye with the Reagen administration.
And you care nothing for the well-being of the rabbit?
How selfish of you.
I guess what follows next would be children - if you wanted it, why can't you have it, right?
What you advocating is a society without judgments. If it's ok with animals, who's to tell you it's not ok with kids. If you want to be able to buy drugs, what's wrong with the person who wants to sell to kids? There is a slippery slope with your kind of "personal freedom".
Were the abolitionists of slavery considered conservatives or liberals? What would today's conservatives' position have been had they been alive 200 years ago?
I didn't know conservatives were taking away your right to a doobie. Show me.
It's funny to me; those who want to protect the unborn from being cut to pieces and sucked from the womb are deemed radical, but those who approve and defend the procedure are viewed as preserving "rights".
Well, I've been called a right wing conservative before, but I'm not necessarily sure that's what I am. I'm more along the lines of a Federalist.
I believe in the Constitution of the United States, the Bill of Rights, and in a limited government. I believe in States' rights to decide on moral issues. I support an individual's right to be left alone, providing he is of no harm to another (so I don't care if someone smokes pot, snorts coke, or what he does behind closed doors). I can't stand the nanny state that thinks they have the right to protect me from myself.
I want to see the government get back to the simple principals of federalism evident in the constitution of the Republic.
And you care nothing for the well-being of the rabbit?
How selfish of you.
I guess what follows next would be children - if you wanted it, why can't you have it, right?
What you advocating is a society without judgments. If it's ok with animals, who's to tell you it's not ok with kids. If you want to be able to buy drugs, what's wrong with the person who wants to sell to kids? There is a slippery slope with your kind of "personal freedom".
You are really arguing with yourself. First you said conservatism is all about personal liberty. Then you contradicted yourself by saying that there are certain personal liberties that you would deny others. Make up your mind. What is conservatism?
Well for me (and I'm not a conservative), this defines their values.
Conservative economic policies, less taxes, less restrictions. That couple with conservative values, which means they are pro-life (anti-abortion), pro-gun, anti-drug, pro-war, pro-Christian values, anti-gay marriage, etc, etc, etc.
I can honestly say, I would agree with a lot of conservative principals. I'm against big government. However, for me anyway, the personal liberty is a bigger problem than the over spendature. Also, after the last 8 years of runaway conservatisim we needed a little more regulation in the economic front.
Our country runs better when you treat it like a one way street. Government adds some higher curbs, but you can run everywhere in between them. The Bush adminstration removed the damned curbs.
I am a conservative (not a Republican, nor Democrat), and in my view the last eight years under Bush were not more than the lesser of two evils, not necessarily conservatism. Bush wasn't a conservative in a lot of issues. For example, conservatism is pro-smaller government. Bush was the opposite of such since he created the largest government ever, which by the way, has only been surpassed by Obama.
Also, if you look at the policies of Bush, from the beginning, were created in conjunction with a few of the most liberal Democrats in Congress.
------
For decades now, true conservatives have voted for the lesser of two evils, usually for the one candidate that at least won't jump right-away into the left-socialist idea of private sector control, and one-world government. Even so, every one of these candidates began moving to the left years ago, except for Reagan. But as you can see nowadays, it seems that the inevitable is upon us.
And you care nothing for the well-being of the rabbit?
How selfish of you.
I guess what follows next would be children - if you wanted it, why can't you have it, right?
What you advocating is a society without judgments. If it's ok with animals, who's to tell you it's not ok with kids. If you want to be able to buy drugs, what's wrong with the person who wants to sell to kids? There is a slippery slope with your kind of "personal freedom".
The line to sign up for PETA, is right around the corner, feel free to sign up.
I am a conservative (not a Republican, nor Democrat), and in my view the last eight years under Bush were not more than the lesser of two evils, not necessarily conservatism. Bush wasn't a conservative in a lot of issues. For example, conservatism is pro-smaller government. Bush was the opposite of such since he created the largest government ever, which by the way, has only been surpassed by Obama.
Also, if you look at the policies of Bush, from the beginning, were created in conjunction with a few of the most liberal Democrats in Congress.
------
For decades now, true conservatives have voted for the lesser of two evils, usually for the one candidate that at least won't jump right-away into the left-socialist idea of private sector control, and one-world government. But as you can see nowadays, it seems that the inevitable is upon us.
I whole heartedly agree with you. I tried to keep the definition of "conservative" to the goldwater type. Small government everything. However, the party seems to have fallen to Reagen, and thats not a real conservative anymore.
You're probably more in line with libertarianism than conservatism.
My understanding is that conservatism - the political philosophy - is not defined by whether you favor small government. The size of government has nothing to do with it.
I just told you not to show me links to someone else's definition.
And I ignored your request.
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.
