[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Exactly. Conservatives pass laws and approve handouts to further their "beliefs" all the time. For instance, Israel gets billions every year from the US taxpayer, to spend on weapons from US companies.

So the Democrat congress has stopped this? Exactly what 'conservatives' passed what laws to approve handouts to further what beliefs? I notice leftists are very often long on vague rhetoric and "there's lot of examples!" but really short on actual details.

Lots and lots of examples like this.

Such as? Cite actual examples.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

So the Democrat congress has stopped this?

Not at all, but Badkosh seems to be of the opinion that only Liberals use statism to push their agenda.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Exactly what 'conservatives' passed what laws to approve handouts to further what beliefs? I notice leftists are very often long on vague rhetoric and "there's lot of examples!" but really short on actual details.


Such as? Cite actual examples.

ummm ... pretty much everything from the social conservatives: gay marriage, abortion, gambling, stem cell research, Christianity in public schools, discrediting evolutionary theory.

*Fiscal* conservatives are much better at sticking to the small government ideology. Social conservatives ... not so much.

[iomatic]

The interesting topics are indeed the definitions, but I'd prefer that (and the consequent bickering) in another thread. Other ideas of note are some of the things both "sides" agree with! Fascinating.

Maybe this should be rephrased: definite Right-of-center (economic and ideologue, slight or extreme) people please let us know what issues you have in that party?

And a separate thread: vice-versa?

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Not at all, but Badkosh seems to be of the opinion that only Liberals use statism to push their agenda

By and large they have been doing just that since the 1930's with FDR. Add in LBJ, and Clinton, and even Carter the stooge and you get the picture. Entitlements that go on forever where none are needed. The Social Security was never used as it was designed. Show me where the conservatives want to use every handout they can to control the populace. The Conservatives would rather cut taxes and regulations so the private sector can make as much money as they can, and the Gov't gets a small portion. The Libs tax the crap out of us and waste it through payoffs, corruption and handouts. Just watching the current admin do just that for their 'health care' bill.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/...son-epa-carol/

[Simon]

You forgot to blame the other two democratic presidents since FDR: Truman and JFK.

And you're right. The conservatives never tax people to pay for their increased defense spending. They always find that money under the couch. Guess that's because they're just so smart.

[BadKosh]

But defense spending is for every citizen, not the biased handouts the left does. The current admin is a prime example of paying off those who would sell out. The liberal states got the bulk of the handouts.

[ort888]

So how is defense spending not considered a handout to defense companies? It's the same thing.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

But defense spending is for every citizen.

psst. that's called "socialism".

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

psst. that's called "socialism".

Haha..

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

ummm ... pretty much everything from the social conservatives: gay marriage,

Not wanting gay marriage isn't a statist goal- in most cases, it doesn't even require anything to change in the current state of marriage, let alone call for bigger government. It's merely the desire by *most* not just conservatives, to see the definition of marriage defined as strictly between a man and woman. Agree with it or not (personally I don't) but it has virtually nothing to do with increasing the size of government.

abortion

Again, no bigger government or statist requirement from the conservative side of this issue, pretty much the opposite. Mostly conservatives want the matter left to states to decide, not something the federal government -via the supreme court- decides for everyone.

gambling

Now you're really reaching. If there is actually a uniquely conservative position on gambling, it would tend to be to favor the system we have, IE: leave it up to the states to decide, IE: Nevada, and to keep the govt. out of it otherwise. IE: less dependency on state-run gambling like lotteries to fund state services.

Nothing in either position is about expanding government, unduly taxing anyone, or pushing a statist agenda.

stem cell research

Again, a reach that couldn't be more off-target. The conservative position is exactly the opposite of statism or bigger government- that is, that public funds should NOT be used to fund embryonic stem cell research against the wishes of citizens. You're clearly confused on what statism is, citing an example of the desire for less government intervention in something, not more.

Christianity in public schools, discrediting evolutionary theory.

In so much as some conservatives want to use government power to push a religious agenda, this is pretty much your only valid example. The irony is, if such people magically got everything they wanted as far as their religious views openly expressed in schools, it probably wouldn't expand the size or power of the state one iota. It's hard to see where it would directly cost anyone anything, or increase anyone's taxes. It's doubtful it would portend the creation of some gigantic, unfunded, government bureaucracy that ends up burning through untold billions of dollars of taxpayer money.

*Fiscal* conservatives are much better at sticking to the small government ideology. Social conservatives ... not so much.

And yet you've shown only one example that's actually at all related to increasing the size of government, and even then, just barely. It's not that I doubt there are probably a few valid examples here and there, but so far we're a long way from the claimed "lots and lots of examples".

[Wiskedjak]

What, in your opinion, makes something "statist"?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

The actual definition- increasing the government's role, ownership of, and power over private sector affairs.

[Wiskedjak]

Then social conservatives are most certainly statist in the area I mentioned, since they've sought, or fought to preserve, government legislation to further their agenda in each of those areas.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

And as I pointed out by your examples, NONE of which serves to expand or increase the government's power.

I'm curious, do you ever actually make a real argument, and back it up, or just do the usual of hammering a square definition of something into a round hole and claiming it fits?

This is exactly how you pull the old "Everything you're in favor of is actually socialism just because I say it is!" ruse, like your silliness with the military.

Everyone fights for legislation they want passed. That's merely participating in the system we all have a stake in. That's not 'statism', and most certainly not the specific economic statism that was being discussed.

If you wanted a real life example that would actually be valid, here, I'll make your argument for you: the Department of Homeland Security. That's actually an example of something that a Republican administration brought into existence that created a new massive and expensive government entity, when very arguably there was no need for it, rather, the duties should have gone to other existing agencies. (Although I should point out, this isn't an example of a function of the private sector being taken over by government since there's no private sector equivalent being replaced, but it is a 'bigger government' example.)

Of all the supposed 'lots and lots!" of examples, it's funny how no one could actually cite the most glaring rather than the usual padded lists of things that don't really fit.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

psst. that's called "socialism".

Thanks for making my day.

[hyteckit]

More conservative fascism and big government.

Arizona passes strict illegal immigration act - latimes.com

The bill directs police to determine the immigration status of noncriminals if there is a 'reasonable suspicion' they are undocumented. Immigrant rights groups say it amounts to a police state.

[ebuddy]

• The war on drugs is a farce. Legalize marijuana and put a host of dealers out of work, generate some tax revenue. Quit sending minor-league criminals to major-league criminals for their wares, then send them to prison for a good hardening, then back out onto the streets as hardened, major-league criminals.
  
• Palin. Quit putting Palin on this pedestal. Author, governor, passionate figure... yes. Spokesperson for the right? No.
  
• Death penalty? No need. Too expensive in appeals and ties up the courts with people proven guilty. Get some useful work out of these perps and don't give 'em an easy way out of living with their horror, every day, for life.
  
• Gay marriage? Civil unions for all, let the churches marry whom they wish. No one has destroyed the sanctity of marriage more than the heterosexual who has defined marriage as a life-long committment you make to one person, at least twice in a lifetime, with prenups to protect assets, and some kind of arrangement for the kids and dogs you thought were as great an idea as the marriage. Gays want the term marriage? Too bad. Now no one gets it. Civil unions. Deal with it. The government has no business paying into agreements people can't uphold anyway.
  
• Old people who can't motivate young people who aren't serving the Republican party.

That's all I've got for now.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

• The war on drugs is a farce. Legalize marijuana and put a host of dealers out of work, generate some tax revenue. Quit sending minor-league criminals to major-league criminals for their wares, then send them to prison for a good hardening, then back out onto the streets as hardened, major-league criminals.
  
• Palin. Quit putting Palin on this pedestal. Author, governor, passionate figure... yes. Spokesperson for the right? No.
  
• Death penalty? No need. Too expensive in appeals and ties up the courts with people proven guilty. Get some useful work out of these perps and don't give 'em an easy way out of living with their horror, every day, for life.
  
• Gay marriage? Civil unions for all, let the churches marry whom they wish. No one has destroyed the sanctity of marriage more than the heterosexual who has defined marriage as a life-long committment you make to one person, at least twice in a lifetime, with prenups to protect assets, and some kind of arrangement for the kids and dogs you thought were as great an idea as the marriage. Gays want the term marriage? Too bad. Now no one gets it. Civil unions. Deal with it. The government has no business paying into agreements people can't uphold anyway.
  
• Old people who can't motivate young people who aren't serving the Republican party.

That's all I've got for now.

*That's* a conservative platform I'd vote for.

[sek929]

Seconded

[Simon]

Thirded.

Looks like you have our votes, ebuddy.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

• The war on drugs is a farce. Legalize marijuana and put a host of dealers out of work, generate some tax revenue. Quit sending minor-league criminals to major-league criminals for their wares, then send them to prison for a good hardening, then back out onto the streets as hardened, major-league criminals.
  
• Palin. Quit putting Palin on this pedestal. Author, governor, passionate figure... yes. Spokesperson for the right? No.
  
• Death penalty? No need. Too expensive in appeals and ties up the courts with people proven guilty. Get some useful work out of these perps and don't give 'em an easy way out of living with their horror, every day, for life.
  
• Gay marriage? Civil unions for all, let the churches marry whom they wish. No one has destroyed the sanctity of marriage more than the heterosexual who has defined marriage as a life-long committment you make to one person, at least twice in a lifetime, with prenups to protect assets, and some kind of arrangement for the kids and dogs you thought were as great an idea as the marriage. Gays want the term marriage? Too bad. Now no one gets it. Civil unions. Deal with it. The government has no business paying into agreements people can't uphold anyway.
  
• Old people who can't motivate young people who aren't serving the Republican party.

Very nice.

But is bickering about terminology like marriage vs civil union really worthwhile? Sounds like a pointless waste of time. And, downgrading every marriage ever by a judge to a mere "civil union" just to please religious people protecting "marriage" as "their turf" is more silly.

Politicians should have better things to do than debate about synonyms.

[besson3c]

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I've heard terms such as "MILF" branded about when mentioning Palin.
Really? Is this what passes for "attractive" in the colonies these days?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Really? Is this what passes for "attractive" in the colonies these days?

The colonies tried to learn good taste in women from the British.

Unfortunately, there was nothing to learn

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

The colonies tried to learn good taste in women from the British.

Unfortunately, there was nothing to learn

-t

What about the chick in Doofy's signature (that I still think is the Gatekeeper from Ghostbusters)?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What about the chick in Doofy's signature (that I still think is the Gatekeeper from Ghostbusters)?

She can't be British.

-t

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

She can't be British.

Born and bred.

(Although, to be fair, 95% of British women are actually horrendous)

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Although, to be fair, 95% of British women are actually horrendous

Yes, that sounds like a fair assessment

-t

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Very nice.

But is bickering about terminology like marriage vs civil union really worthwhile? Sounds like a pointless waste of time.

Yes it is a waste of time. When you consider all the hullabaloo about Prop 8 in California for example, given the laws already on the books protecting civil unions, gays were essentially up in arms over terminology. It's silliness. Two children fighting over a basketball, take the damn basketball. But there's more...

And, downgrading every marriage ever by a judge to a mere "civil union" just to please religious people protecting "marriage" as "their turf" is more silly.

It's not about pleasing religious people. (how many religious people do you suppose would be pleased by my proposal?) It's about putting the government in their proper place. A civil union is the unity of two civilians. Period. It doesn't require tax incentives, penalties, or any acknowledgement at all other than enumeration and the protection of its rights.

Politicians should have better things to do than debate about synonyms.

Well... you may think so, but that's in fact what a great many from both sides of this issue are up in arms about. Fine. Take the terminology away and replace it with something more technically accurate anyway.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yes it is a waste of time. When you consider all the hullabaloo about Prop 8 in California for example, given the laws already on the books protecting civil unions, gays were essentially up in arms over terminology. It's silliness.

They claim that laws providing benefits to married people don't apply to civil unions as they do to marriages. I say the answer is to amend the benefits so that they do apply, or abolish marriage benefits completely.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Born and bred.

(Although, to be fair, 95% of British women are actually horrendous)

Have you had sex with her?

[besson3c]

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Have you had sex with her?

A gentleman never discusses such matters.

/end because we're really really off-topic now and it'll annoy the natives.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

They claim that laws providing benefits to married people don't apply to civil unions as they do to marriages. I say the answer is to amend the benefits so that they do apply, or abolish marriage benefits completely.

That's why it's a farce IMO. There are no new benefits or rights denied gays in Prop 8 as it was never intended to replace or repeal the Domestic Partnerships registry and related protective legislation for civil unions already on the books in California. It essentially boiled down to the term marriage.

I'm with you though. I get that the Federal government may have thought it could encourage what it viewed a "healthy" condition at one time, but whatever measure you choose - marital success cannot be legitimately tied to any government action.

It did not grant love to two people, I don't see why it should be legislating it as if it did.

[hyteckit]

Suicide/Assisted Suicide

Conservatives: make it illegal. you shouldn't be allow to kill yourself or allow others to help you out in committed suicide.
Liberals: make it legal. regulate it. tax it.
Libertarians: None of my business


Terri Shiavo case.

Conservatives want the government to decide who lives or die. Conservatives don't want it to be the decision of their love ones and their doctors.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Suicide/Assisted Suicide

Conservatives: make it illegal. you shouldn't be allow to kill yourself or allow others to help you out in committed suicide.
Liberals: make it legal. regulate it. tax it.
Libertarians: None of my business


Terri Shiavo case.

Conservatives want the government to decide who lives or die. Conservatives don't want it to be the decision of their love ones and their doctors.

You seemed to have missed the spirit of this thread hyteckit. This wasn't yet another opportunity to bash the other side because as you know there are plenty of threads for that, it's supposed to be an opportunity to employ some introspect regarding your side.

Please try again.

[lpkmckenna]

I keep coming back to this thread but can't really participate. I think of myself as a "liberal-tarian," or blue liberal, but I've always voted for the Conservatives here in Canada.

[Simon]

Sounds interesting. Could you explain? I'm not familiar with Canada's liberals (or their conservatives for that matter).

[Captain Obvious]

Also there are two areas of the federal government that I have always felt need to increase greatly and provide more oversight over their respective domains: The FDA and the USDA

I want every vitamin and supplement regulated and I want our food supply monitored as closely as possible. Plus I want everything labeled

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Also there are two areas of the federal government that I have always felt need to increase greatly and provide more oversight over their respective domains: The FDA and the USDA

I want every vitamin and supplement regulated and I want our food supply monitored as closely as possible. Plus I want everything labeled

Nah, I say get rid of FDA and USDA.

Let the market regulate itself and pass Tort reform so people can't sue if someone dies from ingesting contaminated food or untested drugs.

Cheaper food and cheaper drugs, unregulated market is the best.

A few thousand dead here and a few thousand dead there is worth it for cheaper prices and less government.

[besson3c]

The market has spoken, and it has said "hey, what's up? It's me, the market. Are you wondering whether you should take that drug? Well, did you buy it? Well then, you have voted with your dollar and I have spoken, take your drugs, son".

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

A few thousand dead here and a few thousand dead there is worth it for cheaper prices and less government.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The market has spoken, and it has said "hey, what's up? It's me, the market. Are you wondering whether you should take that drug? Well, did you buy it? Well then, you have voted with your dollar and I have spoken, take your drugs, son".

This thread. You're doing it wrong.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

This thread. You're doing it wrong.

I'm probably doing it wrong.

Small government, big government, small government, big government.

Gov. Jan Brewer Signs Controversial Arizona Immigration Bill: Decision Not 'Made Lightly'