What ever happened to Palin, Dick Cheny is the mad dog?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
They are two sides of the same coin. You cannot have one without the other.
I don't necessarily disagree. I think that because they lack any type of understanding of fiscal conservatism they have swung badly out of balance and they only have one thing to hang their hats on. Heck, I even remember years ago on this forum the staunch neocons defending bush's prewar deficit spending. Man, we really need an intelligent, well rounded conservative candidate?
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
Chris Austin wrote:
I don't necessarily disagree. I think that because they lack any type of understanding of fiscal conservatism they have swung badly out of balance and they only have one thing to hang their hats on.
And that is why this is a perfect opportunity to find better conservatives and get them into national office. Frankly, letting the media define who they should be is the biggest mistake we could make. If anything, waiting to see who the media are most concerned about by the way they try to build a negative public persona around them, is the best way to know who to support. I would vote for Palin for no other reason than the media's hate and contempt for her. I would love to see the American people shove that gal into the media's face and watch their heads start exploding.
Chris Austin wrote:
Heck, I even remember years ago on this forum the staunch neocons defending bush's prewar deficit spending. Man, we really need an intelligent, well rounded conservative candidate?
I don't know a single conservative who was ever comfortable with the Bush administration's spending. Everyone was critical of it. The only thing good that could be said of it was that it was still less than the democrats wanted to spend. But, Bush's handling of the economy was not terrible otherwise until the last few months. He kept a nearly optimal level of revenue streaming into the government. But, yeah, we need more people who are willing to really cut spending. They are out there if we ignore the media noise. Bush was not one of them.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Chris Austin wrote:
Where did all of the conservatives go? Did they not vote for Palin and friends because she is too conservative or because she, like a large swath of the republicans are not conservative in any sense beyond social conservatism?
We do indeed need to find better conservatives than we have had. But that includes rock ribbed social conservatives. If you truly understand why fiscal conservatism is important than you also understand why social conservatism is just as important. They are two sides of the same coin. You cannot have one without the other.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
They are two sides of the same coin. You cannot have one without the other
Bullshit. I'm a fiscal conservative but your social conservatism turns my stomach.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
Mike and Stan and Rush don't want the moderates back. They are convinced that the moderates cost them the election. A strange calculus, since driving away those who didn't vote elsewhere on their own accord will just make their losses be by even larger margins. Let them slam the door, it's going to get dark and lonely in that cave they've chosen.
Rob Graham wrote:
it's going to get dark and lonely in that cave they've chosen.
Maybe they'll finally find Bin Lanen in there? :laugh:
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
Stan Shannon wrote:
They are two sides of the same coin. You cannot have one without the other
Bullshit. I'm a fiscal conservative but your social conservatism turns my stomach.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!Tim Craig wrote:
I'm a fiscal conservative but your social conservatism turns my stomach.
Than you are not a fiscal conservative because you cannot possibly have a clue why it is important. And why should the simply notion that the standards that define a civilization be in the hands of the people to define for themselves through their local government promote so much hatred from you? That is how American civilization was traditionally managed. Why do you feel your principles should be forced on the rest of us by the federal government?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Mike and Stan and Rush don't want the moderates back. They are convinced that the moderates cost them the election. A strange calculus, since driving away those who didn't vote elsewhere on their own accord will just make their losses be by even larger margins. Let them slam the door, it's going to get dark and lonely in that cave they've chosen.
Rob Graham wrote:
They are convinced that the moderates cost
cost the nation dearly, compromising the very principles that gave it birth. but go ahead and yammer on about moderation, maybe England will take us back.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
They are convinced that the moderates cost
cost the nation dearly, compromising the very principles that gave it birth. but go ahead and yammer on about moderation, maybe England will take us back.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
maybe England will take us back.
I'll contribute to your and Stan's passage (one way).
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
maybe England will take us back.
I'll contribute to your and Stan's passage (one way).
Rob Graham wrote:
I'll contribute to your and Stan's passage (one way).
wow, was that cutting. you're so busy channeling socialist drivel and raising your hand yelling, "me too" that you have no clue about what has made the country great. but go ahead and send me the price of a coach ticket.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
I'm a fiscal conservative but your social conservatism turns my stomach.
Than you are not a fiscal conservative because you cannot possibly have a clue why it is important. And why should the simply notion that the standards that define a civilization be in the hands of the people to define for themselves through their local government promote so much hatred from you? That is how American civilization was traditionally managed. Why do you feel your principles should be forced on the rest of us by the federal government?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And why should the simply notion that the standards that define a civilization be in the hands of the people to define for themselves through their local government promote so much hatred from you?
Because it's quite clear that your idea of "defining themselves" involves picking groups that are a little different and persecuting them to make yourself feel good. Sounds a lot like high school cliques to me. Whatever happened to the great notion of melting pot? You want to put the fire out and freeze it in your warped 19th century view of the country. The hater is you, Stan, not me.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
Stan Shannon wrote:
And why should the simply notion that the standards that define a civilization be in the hands of the people to define for themselves through their local government promote so much hatred from you?
Because it's quite clear that your idea of "defining themselves" involves picking groups that are a little different and persecuting them to make yourself feel good. Sounds a lot like high school cliques to me. Whatever happened to the great notion of melting pot? You want to put the fire out and freeze it in your warped 19th century view of the country. The hater is you, Stan, not me.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!Tim Craig wrote:
Because it's quite clear that your idea of "defining themselves" involves picking groups that are a little different and persecuting them to make yourself feel good. Sounds a lot like high school cliques to me. Whatever happened to the great notion of melting pot?
Why do you have so little faith in the people and the traditional institutions of American society? You seem to think that people simply cannot be trusted with any sort of actual political authority. That all power to define the proper rules and standards that define our civiliztion should be invested in some kind of omnipotent political authority of some kind. That is not what this country was designed to be. If there are basic rights that are being denied to some people by others, than you simply amend the constitution to provide for protection of those rights. If there is no general public will to amend the constitution to do that, than it must not have been a basic right. The most secure place for our rights is in the hands of our fellow citizens. I have never once even remotely implied that I think some religion should have carte blanche priviledge to be the only group allowed to define our social standards, I only argue that they should be allowed to participate freely in the context of a unrestrained Jeffersonian democracy along with all other groups. What you seem to want is for the government to purposefully hamstring chrisitanity so that social authority passes to groups who are hostile to christian principles. I think my views are much more in keeping with the principles of the enlightenment than are your own.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Because it's quite clear that your idea of "defining themselves" involves picking groups that are a little different and persecuting them to make yourself feel good. Sounds a lot like high school cliques to me. Whatever happened to the great notion of melting pot?
Why do you have so little faith in the people and the traditional institutions of American society? You seem to think that people simply cannot be trusted with any sort of actual political authority. That all power to define the proper rules and standards that define our civiliztion should be invested in some kind of omnipotent political authority of some kind. That is not what this country was designed to be. If there are basic rights that are being denied to some people by others, than you simply amend the constitution to provide for protection of those rights. If there is no general public will to amend the constitution to do that, than it must not have been a basic right. The most secure place for our rights is in the hands of our fellow citizens. I have never once even remotely implied that I think some religion should have carte blanche priviledge to be the only group allowed to define our social standards, I only argue that they should be allowed to participate freely in the context of a unrestrained Jeffersonian democracy along with all other groups. What you seem to want is for the government to purposefully hamstring chrisitanity so that social authority passes to groups who are hostile to christian principles. I think my views are much more in keeping with the principles of the enlightenment than are your own.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Why do you have so little faith in the people
Why do you? Why do you think they need to have a large book full of all the rules about what to think and what to wear and what to say and when to go to bed and with whom or civilization will crumble?
Stan Shannon wrote:
I think my views are much more in keeping with the principles of the enlightenment than are your own.
They aren't. They're not even close.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Why do you have so little faith in the people
Why do you? Why do you think they need to have a large book full of all the rules about what to think and what to wear and what to say and when to go to bed and with whom or civilization will crumble?
Stan Shannon wrote:
I think my views are much more in keeping with the principles of the enlightenment than are your own.
They aren't. They're not even close.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Why do you think they need to have a large book full of all the rules about what to think and what to wear and what to say and when to go to bed and with whom or civilization will crumble?
When did I ever say I did think that? What I do think is that there has never been a non-religious civilization that lasted very long. I think it is rather obvious that a belief in something beyond one's own self, and a willingness to conform to standards of behavior that reguire an exercise of control over our more base instincts and desires has been a successful strategy for maintaining complex human social organization. I don't believe libertarians have anything to replace that with. But, regardless of that, people who believe an ancient book provides guidance of how to live should have equal access to political power as anyone else to determine how civilization is defined.
Oakman wrote:
They aren't. They're not even close.
Nah, I'm actually pretty sure they are. Believing that all people should be allowed to participate in politics is more an enlightenment principles than is defending the freedom to get a blow job. I don't think the enlightnement had anything to do with blow jobs or anal sex, or abortions for that matter. I think it had to do with empowering people, even religious people, to participate in defining the parameters of a civilization.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
Why do you think they need to have a large book full of all the rules about what to think and what to wear and what to say and when to go to bed and with whom or civilization will crumble?
When did I ever say I did think that? What I do think is that there has never been a non-religious civilization that lasted very long. I think it is rather obvious that a belief in something beyond one's own self, and a willingness to conform to standards of behavior that reguire an exercise of control over our more base instincts and desires has been a successful strategy for maintaining complex human social organization. I don't believe libertarians have anything to replace that with. But, regardless of that, people who believe an ancient book provides guidance of how to live should have equal access to political power as anyone else to determine how civilization is defined.
Oakman wrote:
They aren't. They're not even close.
Nah, I'm actually pretty sure they are. Believing that all people should be allowed to participate in politics is more an enlightenment principles than is defending the freedom to get a blow job. I don't think the enlightnement had anything to do with blow jobs or anal sex, or abortions for that matter. I think it had to do with empowering people, even religious people, to participate in defining the parameters of a civilization.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
When did I ever say I did think that? What I do think is that there has never been a non-religious civilization that lasted very long.
You may have thought I was referring to the bible. I should have made it clearer that I was referring to a book filled with all the laws you want to pass about what behavior is permitted.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't think the enlightnement had anything to do with blow jobs or anal sex, or abortions for that matter
Actually, you come across as thinking that it's all about those things: And gaining the power to make them criminal.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I think it had to do with empowering people, even religious people, to participate in defining the parameters of a civilization
See? Once again, you need to have a book defining what to do, when to do it, and who to do it with. Trust the people, Stan. Give up and needing to mind everyone else's business. We don't need a nanny state on the federal or the local level.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
When did I ever say I did think that? What I do think is that there has never been a non-religious civilization that lasted very long.
You may have thought I was referring to the bible. I should have made it clearer that I was referring to a book filled with all the laws you want to pass about what behavior is permitted.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't think the enlightnement had anything to do with blow jobs or anal sex, or abortions for that matter
Actually, you come across as thinking that it's all about those things: And gaining the power to make them criminal.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I think it had to do with empowering people, even religious people, to participate in defining the parameters of a civilization
See? Once again, you need to have a book defining what to do, when to do it, and who to do it with. Trust the people, Stan. Give up and needing to mind everyone else's business. We don't need a nanny state on the federal or the local level.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
You may have thought I was referring to the bible. I should have made it clearer that I was referring to a book filled with all the laws you want to pass about what behavior is permitted.
You may believe that, but you are wrong. A society that is largely committed to religious principles requires less law than one which is not. A committment to implement a purely libertarian society would ultimately and inevitably result in the very thing you apparently most fear. Its odd that you would be so vocal about supporting the court's usurping of the role of the church in our society and not realize that. Something doesn't quite ring true with that.
Oakman wrote:
Actually, you come across as thinking that it's all about those things: And gaining the power to make them criminal.
It is all about those things. Your principles simply put control of society into the hands of those who have no limit upon their depravity. Once they have achieved one level of it, they will grow bored with it and move on to the next lower level. That is inevitable and the rest of us will be held bound and gagged by your government from ever acting to defend it.
Oakman wrote:
Trust the people, Stan. Give up and needing to mind everyone else's business. We don't need a nanny state on the federal or the local level.
I trust people explicitely to work together as a collective in their own best self interest, that is the most powerful social formula of all. But you simply cannot have a civil society that allows everyone to do what ever the hell they please as long as there is no overt physical or financial harm done to someone else. Any such society will drop like a B-17 with its wing shot off and a belly full of bombs.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
You may have thought I was referring to the bible. I should have made it clearer that I was referring to a book filled with all the laws you want to pass about what behavior is permitted.
You may believe that, but you are wrong. A society that is largely committed to religious principles requires less law than one which is not. A committment to implement a purely libertarian society would ultimately and inevitably result in the very thing you apparently most fear. Its odd that you would be so vocal about supporting the court's usurping of the role of the church in our society and not realize that. Something doesn't quite ring true with that.
Oakman wrote:
Actually, you come across as thinking that it's all about those things: And gaining the power to make them criminal.
It is all about those things. Your principles simply put control of society into the hands of those who have no limit upon their depravity. Once they have achieved one level of it, they will grow bored with it and move on to the next lower level. That is inevitable and the rest of us will be held bound and gagged by your government from ever acting to defend it.
Oakman wrote:
Trust the people, Stan. Give up and needing to mind everyone else's business. We don't need a nanny state on the federal or the local level.
I trust people explicitely to work together as a collective in their own best self interest, that is the most powerful social formula of all. But you simply cannot have a civil society that allows everyone to do what ever the hell they please as long as there is no overt physical or financial harm done to someone else. Any such society will drop like a B-17 with its wing shot off and a belly full of bombs.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
A society that is largely committed to religious principles requires less law than one which is not.
Yes, I've noticed. Shari'a law, especially.
Stan Shannon wrote:
A committment to implement a purely libertarian society would ultimately and inevitably result in the very thing you apparently most fear
A. Are you somehow under the impression that I have ever said or implied that a purely (i.e. Ayn Randian) Libertarian society is what I would like to see implemented. The only person on this board who has ever said that she got it right was you. By the way, what I most fear is my third wife. I don't think she's a result of a libertarian society.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is all about those things
So the enlightenment is all about keeping homosexuals on the "straight" and narrow? Y'know, in all my reading, I don't think I ever ran across that concept before.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Your principles simply put control of society into the hands of those who have no limit upon their depravity
Do tell? How exactly to my principles (not something you make up and try to convince yourself I said) lead to total depravity? It is you who want to get rid of police forces, not me. I want them to protect me from physical harm; you want them to go away - or so you say. Here's a clue, Stan. You and Rand are arguing for a society where the crooks and creeps will take over. Not me.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Because it's quite clear that your idea of "defining themselves" involves picking groups that are a little different and persecuting them to make yourself feel good. Sounds a lot like high school cliques to me. Whatever happened to the great notion of melting pot?
Why do you have so little faith in the people and the traditional institutions of American society? You seem to think that people simply cannot be trusted with any sort of actual political authority. That all power to define the proper rules and standards that define our civiliztion should be invested in some kind of omnipotent political authority of some kind. That is not what this country was designed to be. If there are basic rights that are being denied to some people by others, than you simply amend the constitution to provide for protection of those rights. If there is no general public will to amend the constitution to do that, than it must not have been a basic right. The most secure place for our rights is in the hands of our fellow citizens. I have never once even remotely implied that I think some religion should have carte blanche priviledge to be the only group allowed to define our social standards, I only argue that they should be allowed to participate freely in the context of a unrestrained Jeffersonian democracy along with all other groups. What you seem to want is for the government to purposefully hamstring chrisitanity so that social authority passes to groups who are hostile to christian principles. I think my views are much more in keeping with the principles of the enlightenment than are your own.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I have never once even remotely implied that I think some religion should have carte blanche priviledge to be the only group allowed to define our social standards,
Is your memory that shot or just selective?
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!