[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I am on the boarder of Conservative/Libertarian, but I am leaning more and more Libertarian every day. I am Fiscally Conservative, and Socially Moderate. I am a Christian, but do not believe the Government should legislate Morals.
[/quote]
The way I see it, this is the issue with conservatives today.
I don’t oppose fiscal conservatism, though certain concepts like the trickle-down theory of economics, at least in the way the Republicans like to practice it, behind it doesn’t make much sense to me.
I have absolutely no idea how conservatives can claim to be all for rights of people while simultaneously pushing for a fucking amendment to the Constitution to ban gay marriage.
The sooner conservatives can separate their economic and social ideology, the better for them. Virtually all of the young people I know oppose the Republican party SOLELY based on their social platforms.[/quote]
If Republicans would STFU about the social issues, or at least take a more neutral position on them; boot out the crazies talking about “rape being God’s will”; and work on providing a friendlier business environment; I think Republicans could clean house.
[/quote]
I agree with this, and I also believe this is the majority of Republicans. It is the Older, Senior Citizens if you will, that turn out to vote that are still apart of the Religious Right. I see this way of thinking at every Wednesday Night Prayer meeting at my church. My pastor and I are on the same page. STFU…My pastor even said from the pulpit during a Sunday sermon, “please stop sending me emails about how you hate the President.” “God put that man in office for a reason, and we as Christians should honor him even if we do not agree with him.”
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I am on the boarder of Conservative/Libertarian, but I am leaning more and more Libertarian every day. I am Fiscally Conservative, and Socially Moderate. I am a Christian, but do not believe the Government should legislate Morals.
[/quote]
The way I see it, this is the issue with conservatives today.
I don’t oppose fiscal conservatism, though certain concepts like the trickle-down theory of economics, at least in the way the Republicans like to practice it, behind it doesn’t make much sense to me.
I have absolutely no idea how conservatives can claim to be all for rights of people while simultaneously pushing for a fucking amendment to the Constitution to ban gay marriage.
The sooner conservatives can separate their economic and social ideology, the better for them. Virtually all of the young people I know oppose the Republican party SOLELY based on their social platforms.[/quote]
It’s very hypocritical though you could say that about both sides. Essentially Republicans and Democrats are against government enforcing things they don’t like and absolutely thrilled for it to force things they are in favor of.
[quote]H factor wrote:
It’s very hypocritical though you could say that about both sides. Essentially Republicans and Democrats are against government enforcing things they don’t like and absolutely thrilled for it to force things they are in favor of. [/quote]
Both sides show a great deal of hypocrisy.
But the Republicans and their show of state and people rights really do not jive all that well with some of their social platforms.
[quote]H factor wrote:
It’s very hypocritical though you could say that about both sides. Essentially Republicans and Democrats are against government enforcing things they don’t like and absolutely thrilled for it to force things they are in favor of. [/quote]
Both sides show a great deal of hypocrisy.
But the Republicans and their show of state and people rights really do not jive all that well with some of their social platforms.
The gay rights issue is the most obvious one.[/quote]
It is states rights to choose whether or not to allow Gay Marriage. So it does jive.
[quote]H factor wrote:
It’s very hypocritical though you could say that about both sides. Essentially Republicans and Democrats are against government enforcing things they don’t like and absolutely thrilled for it to force things they are in favor of. [/quote]
Both sides show a great deal of hypocrisy.
But the Republicans and their show of state and people rights really do not jive all that well with some of their social platforms.
The gay rights issue is the most obvious one.[/quote]
It is states rights to choose whether or not to allow Gay Marriage. So it does jive.
[/quote]
Clearly a Constitutional amendment is leaving it up to state’s rights =P
Furthermore, the concept of state’s rights and people’s rights are not inclusive. Republicans seemingly use the two interchangeably.
In an era where California and other bigger states have a larger population than other entire foreign countries, states are basically nations onto themselves. Whatever made state rights important in the 18-19th century may not apply anymore.
I mean, you have areas in California that are so Republican that Democrats have absolutely no chance of winning, period. Yet California overall is somehow known as a Democratic state and a sure-fire to vote for Democratic presidents.
My point being- What exactly prevents you from going another step from nation rights to state rights to county/district/city rights? If the population of the city of Los Angles alone constitutes a third of the population of the entirety of the U.S. in the early 19th century, then how exactly do you think that you can represent all of them fairly with just the state? Or the nation?
My point being- What exactly prevents you from going another step from nation rights to state rights to county/district/city rights? If the population of the city of Los Angles alone constitutes a third of the population of the entirety of the U.S. in the early 19th century, then how exactly do you think that you can represent all of them fairly with just the state? Or the nation?
You can’t.[/quote]
Today you can. Senators and Representatives are voted in by majority vote. Before the 17th amendment then you could not. I wish we would get rid of the 17th amendment and allow the State legislatures to pick who their Senators are.
[quote]magick wrote:
though certain concepts like the trickle-down theory of economics, at least in the way the Republicans like to practice it, behind it doesn’t make much sense to me.
[/quote]
Please explain what “trickle down” you are talking about, how it is accomplished and how the Republicans are the only party who do what you explain.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
By the way, DM, if the biblical precept about obeying and honoring one’s rulers is to be discussed it’s worth noting that in the grand ol’ USA the “rulers” are The People.
Congressmen, Senators, judges and the president are our servants not our rulers. They work for us.[/quote]