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.
I can not speak for everyone only my self. However I had an interesting conversation today with someone that places herself in the conservitive category. I don't think this person is a conservative as much as a anarchist.
We were talking about the response of the national guard to a Colorado Blizzard. The Colorado National Guard dropped hay to cattle that the ranchers could not get to.
This person that I was talking to said that it was not the National Guards job to do help industry and they should not have feed the cows. She included that I must not understand the reason for the National Guard. I bit my tongue on that one. In another part of the conversation she later went on to say that the tax payers should not pay for the secret service and if an official felt he/she needed protection they should hire bodyguards.
Apparently this person is representing an opinion that is heard and shared by others that call them selves conservatives but are stealing the label from rational conservative people. I am not sure what ideology I would place this person under but it is not under the conservative label as I know it.
This type of thinking for conservatives is not the norm. Thankfully I know it is a bastardized version hijacking the title. The real conservative is not out to abandon the average man and make the rich richer by stepping on the average man, or to make the Federal Government obsolete. Real conservatives are wanting the government to act responsible with the money that we pay in taxes and to eliminate unneeded taxes. I want people to succeed in there endeavors. That includes being assisted by welfare but not become dependant on it. I want to make a legacy and pass it on to my children without them being taxed for it for now good reason. When I pay taxes to the government I regard it as a resource that I should be able to use with in reason.
If you are the "undecided" I want you to know that if you ever hear the type of talk that I heard tonight run like a deer in a forest fire. But know that is not the position real of rational conservatives.
I will add that the opinion that I heard is the one that the left promotes because it is so irrational and destructive. When that is done people need to come on boards like this and see what rational conservatives believe.
...and if they don't agree, then they're scurvy dogs, sleazy weasels, sniveling ca-cas, worthless cow-patties, unworthy of the cow that died to make their stinking belt, the running-dog jackels!
You know, you are one of the few people that post that I read. I mean really listen to what you have to say. I don't have to agree with it. But it is always worth reading.
And at some point, you will have to admit that those that claim to be conservative that frequently post have taken the name conservative and stomped on it, thrown it around the room and painted it up into a distorted little mannequin of what it once meant. Some are obviously paid to spin crap and take simple issues and make them as extreme as possible.
It gets very difficult to remember that there are conservatives that are actually not whacked out. And I am completely guilty of forgetting that in the middle of a battle that they are here. And isn't that the point? We are to forget rational discourse?
You may be one of the very few of the actual conservatives, and I thought you were not actually conservative but libertarian, left. I find that rather sad.
Actuallt Dewmilk, that would be a libertarian. That's a Ron Paul type person. What you are describing yourself as, I would say mainline conservative or neo-con like Palin or Newt, etc. But that's a stretch, I think you are center-right, but closer to the center than right
I can not speak for everyone only my self. However I had an interesting conversation today with someone that places herself in the conservitive category. I don't think this person is a conservative as much as a anarchist.
We were talking about the response of the national guard to a Colorado Blizzard. The Colorado National Guard dropped hay to cattle that the ranchers could not get to.
This person that I was talking to said that it was not the National Guards job to do help industry and they should not have feed the cows. She included that I must not understand the reason for the National Guard. I bit my tongue on that one. In another part of the conversation she later went on to say that the tax payers should not pay for the secret service and if an official felt he/she needed protection they should hire bodyguards.
Apparently this person is representing an opinion that is heard and shared by others that call them selves conservatives but are stealing the label from rational conservative people. I am not sure what ideology I would place this person under but it is not under the conservative label as I know it.
This type of thinking for conservatives is not the norm. Thankfully I know it is a bastardized version hijacking the title. The real conservative is not out to abandon the average man and make the rich richer by stepping on the average man, or to make the Federal Government obsolete. Real conservatives are wanting the government to act responsible with the money that we pay in taxes and to eliminate unneeded taxes. I want people to succeed in there endeavors. That includes being assisted by welfare but not become dependant on it. I want to make a legacy and pass it on to my children without them being taxed for it for now good reason. When I pay taxes to the government I regard it as a resource that I should be able to use with in reason.
If you are the "undecided" I want you to know that if you ever hear the type of talk that I heard tonight run like a deer in a forest fire. But know that is not the position real of rational conservatives.
I will add that the opinion that I heard is the one that the left promotes because it is so irrational and destructive. When that is done people need to come on boards like this and see what rational conservatives believe.
good post. Your "conservative" friend is misguided. It is the Governor's job to use the National Guard in instances of severe weather, etc. As for the secret service. Again, I think she is wrong, but... I do think we spend entirely way too much on security, including secret service. I bet we could cut secret service by 50% and Obama would be just as secure
good post. Your "conservative" friend is misguided. It is the Governor's job to use the National Guard in instances of severe weather, etc. As for the secret service. Again, I think she is wrong, but... I do think we spend entirely way too much on security, including secret service. I bet we could cut secret service by 50% and Obama would be just as secure
Yeah I agree that would be overkill. However according to the Constitution, the President can mobilize the National Guard as well, it's not just a Governor's decision. My thinking is, if it's not in the Constitution, then it's not the federal government's job but the States' job. Which is what some Republicans talk about when they wanted to consider a bill that would say that its Constitutional authority needs to be cited inside the bill
Yeah I agree that would be overkill. However according to the Constitution, the President can mobilize the National Guard as well, it's not just a Governor's decision. My thinking is, if it's not in the Constitution, then it's not the federal government's job but the States' job. Which is what some Republicans talk about when they wanted to consider a bill that would say that its Constitutional authority needs to be cited inside the bill
Can the president mobilize the national guard for any reason? Doesn't he need a declaration of war? Or at least some other approval authority? I know that there have been a few debates between governors and the pres over this issue.
Can the president mobilize the national guard for any reason? Doesn't he need a declaration of war? Or at least some other approval authority? I know that there have been a few debates between governors and the pres over this issue.
Though originally state entities, the Consitutional "Militia of the Several States" were not entirely independent, however, because they could be federalized. According to Article I, Section 8; Clause 15, the United States Congress is given the power to pass laws for "calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." Congress is also enpowered to come up with the guidelines "for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." (clause 16) The President of the United States is the commander-in-chief of the state militias "when called into the actual Service of the United States". (Article II, Section 2).
I can not speak for everyone only my self. However I had an interesting conversation today with someone that places herself in the conservitive category. I don't think this person is a conservative as much as a anarchist.
We were talking about the response of the national guard to a Colorado Blizzard. The Colorado National Guard dropped hay to cattle that the ranchers could not get to.
This person that I was talking to said that it was not the National Guards job to do help industry and they should not have feed the cows. She included that I must not understand the reason for the National Guard. I bit my tongue on that one. In another part of the conversation she later went on to say that the tax payers should not pay for the secret service and if an official felt he/she needed protection they should hire bodyguards.
Apparently this person is representing an opinion that is heard and shared by others that call them selves conservatives but are stealing the label from rational conservative people. I am not sure what ideology I would place this person under but it is not under the conservative label as I know it.
This type of thinking for conservatives is not the norm. Thankfully I know it is a bastardized version hijacking the title. The real conservative is not out to abandon the average man and make the rich richer by stepping on the average man, or to make the Federal Government obsolete. Real conservatives are wanting the government to act responsible with the money that we pay in taxes and to eliminate unneeded taxes. I want people to succeed in there endeavors. That includes being assisted by welfare but not become dependant on it. I want to make a legacy and pass it on to my children without them being taxed for it for now good reason. When I pay taxes to the government I regard it as a resource that I should be able to use with in reason.
If you are the "undecided" I want you to know that if you ever hear the type of talk that I heard tonight run like a deer in a forest fire. But know that is not the position real of rational conservatives.
I will add that the opinion that I heard is the one that the left promotes because it is so irrational and destructive. When that is done people need to come on boards like this and see what rational conservatives believe.
Excellent post. I suspect that you and I are pretty close politically.
When it comes to politics, people have a wide range of ideas as to what is the proper definition of liberal, conservative, Marxist, ect... It sounds like the gal in the OP was a lot further to the right then me, if that is even the right way to put it.
I think most conservatives are not that rigid and inflexible, we can see the benefit of social welfare programs to assist the most vulnerable among us, but then draw the line when it comes to expanding the same types of welfare to ordinary citizens. We can understand an grudgingly except a sliding income tax rate, where the wealthier citizens pay a bit more then the lower income people, and then draw the line when nearly half the nation is not paying any income tax.
The purists of either end of the political spectrum are too rigid, they either want government to be all powerful, or a government that operates within a state of near anarchy. I think the gal in the OP may be in one of these camps.
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.
