Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: PapaBear3625
There are times that I think there are quite a few social conservatives who, if presented with a deal where the Dems agree to restrictions on abortion and pornography in exchange for an expansion of the Nanny State and its funding, would take the deal.

I'm a socon and I have no problems with this. Especially when you contrast it with the opposite argument. Which - sad to say - is already in play:

There are times that I think there are quite a few LIBERTARAIANS who, if presented with a deal where the Dems agree to DECREASE restrictions on abortion and pornography in exchange for a DECREASE of the Nanny State and its funding, would take the deal.

159 posted on 02/10/2012 4:32:42 PM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This mean Liberals and/or Libertarians (Same Thing) NO LIBS.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies ]


To: Responsibility2nd
I'm a socon and I have no problems with this. Especially when you contrast it with the opposite argument. Which - sad to say - is already in play:

There are times that I think there are quite a few LIBERTARAIANS who, if presented with a deal where the Dems agree to DECREASE restrictions on abortion and pornography in exchange for a DECREASE of the Nanny State and its funding, would take the deal.

I would not take the deal, for one simple reason: I've been around long enough to know that the Dems would cheat, would take what was offered them as an irrevocable concession, and then refuse to deliver on their side (or cancel their side of the deal the following year).

But thanks for illustrating my point.

161 posted on 02/10/2012 4:44:06 PM PST by PapaBear3625 (In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies ]

To: Responsibility2nd

Here’s my take - and this just seems how it works.

You push in a politician who is, for all intents, a social conservative. That politician enacts regulations and laws and enables more and bigger bureaucracies to form. The government workers who are then hired in that new mega-department are almost always leftists and then push to subvert that bigger bureaucracy into a leftist enabling entity. Effectively nullifying the voters intent in the long run.

I myself am super strict in my family - but I see clearly when the government plays the moral parent we just get more and bigger leftism - more powerful immorality. For example, homeland security is now targeting abortion clinic protestors. My argument for less government is that government always ends up pushing the progressive agenda, because most people who want to work for the government are progressives. I wish that weren’t true - but it just is.

I feel we are used like suckers, pushing for a government that we believe will do the right thing - but they never, ever do. So I would rather see their power limited - and at least they won’t use my tax money to pay for every sick thing there is!

Also if we reduce government, it will force the population to grow up and act like adults, and that is always more socially conservative.


165 posted on 02/10/2012 5:00:17 PM PST by LibertyLA (fighting libtards and other giant government enablers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson