What Conservatism Should Look Like

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]jawara wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Advocating and legislating are very different things Sloth.

I don’t know, Beowolf. More and more, I find myself believing that social libertarianism dooms fiscal libertarianism. A people that tends to seek instant gratification will look for others to share the burden when their lifestyles blow-up in their face.

I really dont think you can claim to be a moral libral and a fiscal conservitive. Having liberal morals means that you want things like free sex which will then mean you want free condoms and free healthcare for people with HIV. But if your a fiscal conservitive you don’t want to give up the money because you want people to pay for that stuff themselves. So yeah, good point. It’s not my fault people in Africa have AIDS why are they taking money from me to pay for it? Thats just one example.[/quote]

I believe in free sex. But if you don’t buy a condom and you get AIDS, sucks to be you. Personal responsibility for all autonomous actions, ethical actions.

See how easy that was?

22

Look, I’m not saying people should run around like hippies doing nothing with their lives but drugs and sex, but we have to LET people do these things LEGALLY if they so choose. And then refuse to steal from others to hell[p them when they fuck up their lives.

23

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The only time they are conservative is when it is for a social program for the (poor).
[/quote]
Please explain this.

24

[quote]dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I think it elaborates my point with the Republican Party, meaning the Republicans are not conservative.The only time they are conservative is when it is for a social program for the (poor).

Please explain this.
[/quote]

The government can bail out a bank and not get the intended results and it is OK. If there is any hint of the government bailing out a home owner or small investor. Heaven forbid, they took the risk they should live with their mistakes.
I took the liberty to put the preceding statement in, it makes more sense. I hope you are going to play nice :slight_smile:

The Republican Party had absolutely zero problems with America racking up astronomical debt, with the Iraq war and with giving huge tax breaks to the most wealthy of Americans, but if there is a hint of middle class America getting a break, then the Republican Party pisses and moans. I do think that it makes a lot more sense if you look at the Starve the Beast theory .Create huge deficits , so that when the shit hits the fan, you have to cancel all the social programs.

25

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I think it elaborates my point with the Republican Party, meaning the Republicans are not conservative.The only time they are conservative is when it is for a social program for the (poor).

Please explain this.

[/quote]
I am not even sure why I am getting back into this with you. You are throwing out random bull shit again and I just can’t let it fly. Call it a character flaw.

How many Republican’s thought this was OK.

You do realize republicans put proposed bailing out homeowner in the current bill. Probably the same minority of republicans you think supported the bailouts.

How did we rack up debt letting the most wealthy keep a little more of their money? Did we collect more or less tax revenue by cutting taxes?

Republicans beleive in cutting taxes for those that actually pay them. I see you still haven’t taken the time to actually look at tax revenue collection by income bracket. Way to go.

When’s the last time republicans cut a social program? Huge deficites are created by spending more on social programs. If they tried to do this by cutting taxes, they’d just end up with more money.

I am afraid to ask if you really think republicans wanted war just to create a deficite to eventually undermine social programs. I wonder why the dems wanted to go to war?

I just can’t understand why you can’t take a couple of minutes to actually do a little bit of research on things you post. Go look at what happened to social programs when republicans controlled congress.

26

[quote]dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I think it elaborates my point with the Republican Party, meaning the Republicans are not conservative.The only time they are conservative is when it is for a social program for the (poor).

Please explain this.

I am not even sure why I am getting back into this with you. You are throwing out random bull shit again and I just can’t let it fly. Call it a character flaw.

I am not sure why either, it didn’t work . I do not know how to answer line by line

The government can bail out a bank and not get the intended results and it is OK.

How many Republican’s thought this was OK.

how many Republicans did something ?

If there is any hint of the government bailing out a home owner or small investor. Heaven forbid, they took the risk they should live with their mistakes.

You do realize republicans put proposed bailing out homeowner in the current bill. Probably the same minority of republicans you think supported the bailouts.

I took the liberty to put the preceding statement in, it makes more sense. I hope you are going to play nice :slight_smile:

The Republican Party had absolutely zero problems with America racking up astronomical debt, with the Iraq war and with giving huge tax breaks to the most wealthy of Americans,

How did we rack up debt letting the most wealthy keep a little more of their money? Did we collect more or less tax revenue by cutting taxes?

When you bring in less money than you spend you rack up debt

but if there is a hint of middle class America getting a break, then the Republican Party pisses and moans.

Republicans beleive in cutting taxes for those that actually pay them. I see you still haven’t taken the time to actually look at tax revenue collection by income bracket. Way to go.

All of the tax breaks come to the upper end of wage earners, I know I pay taxes in the middle class brackets

I do think that it makes a lot more sense if you look at the Starve the Beast theory .Create huge deficits , so that when the shit hits the fan, you have to cancel all the social programs.

When’s the last time republicans cut a social program? Huge deficites are created by spending more on social programs. If they tried to do this by cutting taxes, they’d just end up with more money.

Ketchup is now a vegetable

I am afraid to ask if you really think republicans wanted war just to create a deficite to eventually undermine social programs. I wonder why the dems wanted to go to war?

It is called war profiteering

I just can’t understand why you can’t take a couple of minutes to actually do a little bit of research on things you post. Go look at what happened to social programs when republicans controlled congress.
[/quote]

I hope this works right