Okay, that was like pulling teeth to get you to at least admit a limited government stance. That is a libertarian position. Sorry if that hurts, but it is. How far you are willing to carry that stance is where a lot of lines get drawn. Reagan read libertarian thinkers, and especially admired the fusionism of Frank Meyer. Meyer blended traditionalism with libertarianism, which at that point had very little to say on social issues. Our culture would not come under direct attack until later. He impacted Reagan and Buckley enormously. That’s why Friedman, Hayek, Sowell, and others are libertarians that are part of the conservative pantheon. Philosophies are not grab bags for issues.
I’m glad to finally hear your support for limited government. I still think you are utterly ignorant on the subject at hand, and tend to be very dishonest in debate. You continually attack straw men, and make claims about previous posts that are demonstrably untrue. When called out on these lapses, you obfuscate and avoid even further.
Another silly post, it wasn’t like pulling teeth, I am a conservative and you knew that from many of my posts on this thread.
I’m not interested in how you share our conservative small government, conservative economics, I am interested in what you are trying to destroy in America, what you are at war with conservatism about and what areas you are joined at the hip with the left on.
It is where you fight conservatism that the discussion begins, and that is social issues and national defense.
Post 218 was very short, clear and honest and the clear cut conservative position, something that the libertarians can’t be, that is why these threads go on forever and you guys rage and attack and insult so much, while evading and avoiding what your actual views are.
You are fighting fiercely, but won’t be open about what you are fighting for.