Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

I am sure this is blasphemy to some, and to others it marks me as a 'troll'. Either way, I am looking for a lucid discussion about this subject. As a long-time conservative, a Viet Nam veteran, lifetime Christian, and as someone with an inquisitive mind, I need to understand why George Bush was chosen to carry the banner of Conservatism?

Let me state my case, and then limit my question to two parts.

My case is this: While I voted for Reagan and GHW Bush, I did not vote for George W. in either election; thank goodness in California there is the Libertarian Party! My first choice was the decorated war veteran Sen. John McCain, but George W's smear campaign against him eliminated that option. Then, in the last four years, he has run up a national debt that is both scandalous and ruinous. Finally, he once again disingeniously participated in smearing a decorated war veteran. My medals are far less valorous than either McCain's or Kerry's, but even their modest accomplishment was tarnished- as were those of all Viet Nam vets- when the President participated in the defamation- all this from a man who, as was discovered in the last election, specifically requested NOT to serve in the war zone.

For me, conservatism has focused on two primary goals: fiscal responsibility and limited federal involvement in our lives.

When the President took office the federal government's books were balanced- and, I might add, they had been balanced by a Democrat. While 9/11 certainly had an incredible financial impact on our nation, the President borrowed huge amounts of money for tax cuts. Borrowing the money for prosecution of the Afghanistan War and for the new expenses in shoring up homeland security were ominous enough.

My second concern is the encroachment of state's rights through advocacy of banned abortions and gay marriage. My first introduction to this site was through this question, and my family and I were villified as drug-abusing homosexuals given to beastiality, and that all of California would soon look like Ground Zero. To me, this is not a religious argument- it asks the secular question about infringing on the rights of the state and, by induction, the rights of the individual. My position, as stated by Barry Goldwater in 1960, and one that I have carried as my mantra since then, is that any power given up by the state to the federal government reduces my personal freedom.

I would appreciate meaningful secular answers to these questions.

1 posted on 12/12/2004 4:44:52 PM PST by Mind_of_Adam_Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061 next last
To: Mind_of_Adam_Smith

2 posted on 12/12/2004 4:48:14 PM PST by denydenydeny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mind_of_Adam_Smith
When the President took office the federal government's books were balanced- and, I might add, they had been balanced by a Democrat. While 9/11 certainly had an incredible financial impact on our nation, the President borrowed huge amounts of money for tax cuts. Borrowing the money for prosecution of the Afghanistan War and for the new expenses in shoring up homeland security were ominous enough.

OK you voted for Reagan twice and don't like tax cuts but rather the balanced budget at all costs of Hoover?

My second concern is the encroachment of state's rights through advocacy of banned abortions and gay marriage. My first introduction to this site was through this question, and my family and I were villified as drug-abusing homosexuals given to beastiality, and that all of California would soon look like Ground Zero. To me, this is not a religious argument- it asks the secular question about infringing on the rights of the state and, by induction, the rights of the individual. My position, as stated by Barry Goldwater in 1960, and one that I have carried as my mantra since then, is that any power given up by the state to the federal government reduces my personal freedom.

You are right in that you are a libertarian. Feel free to keep voting for those liberteens.

3 posted on 12/12/2004 4:48:30 PM PST by NeoCaveman (There is no dufu but DUFU and PJ Comix is its writer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mind_of_Adam_Smith

You live in a world in which I am not familiar with.


4 posted on 12/12/2004 4:48:36 PM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical! † [Check out my profile page])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mind_of_Adam_Smith
Could this be a Troll?
5 posted on 12/12/2004 4:50:10 PM PST by Poser (Joining Belly Girl in the Pajamahadeen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mind_of_Adam_Smith; VRWCmember; ButThreeLeftsDo; perogy22; meowmeow; Constitution Day; Poohbah; ...

Pinging a few people who might be able to answer your questions.


6 posted on 12/12/2004 4:50:12 PM PST by trussell (I Never Frown, even when I am sad,because I never know who is falling in love with my Smile!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mind_of_Adam_Smith

How does a libertarian support Mr. CFR, Keating 5, Global warming believing, Gun banning, infringing on all our rights McCain. If he was the Republican candidate I'd consider third parties and maybe (as last resort) even vote Democrat.


7 posted on 12/12/2004 4:51:14 PM PST by NeoCaveman (There is no dufu but DUFU and PJ Comix is its writer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mind_of_Adam_Smith
My second concern is the encroachment of state's rights through advocacy of banned abortions...

So you support Roe v. Wade?

But how? For that surely was a major encroachment of state's rights by removing their ability to ban abortion if they wished.

10 posted on 12/12/2004 4:56:48 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum europe vincendarum (Happy Hanukkah!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mind_of_Adam_Smith
My second concern is the encroachment of state's rights through advocacy of banned abortions and gay marriage

This is exactly like objecting to the Thirteenth Amendment because it interfered with interstate commerce.

11 posted on 12/12/2004 4:57:54 PM PST by denydenydeny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mind_of_Adam_Smith
My first choice was the decorated war veteran Sen. John McCain,

So you like people who smear their fellow vets as John McCain did?

How interesting.

12 posted on 12/12/2004 5:01:14 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum europe vincendarum (Happy Hanukkah!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mind_of_Adam_Smith
Your post is such a target-rich environment, I don't know where to begin.......


13 posted on 12/12/2004 5:03:08 PM PST by Viking2002 (Taglines? Vikings don't need no steenkin' taglines..............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mind_of_Adam_Smith
I need to understand why George Bush was chosen to carry the banner of Conservatism?

WTF are you talking about?

14 posted on 12/12/2004 5:04:40 PM PST by bad company (I'm a new Grandpa.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mind_of_Adam_Smith

How do you feel about the libertarian party wasting taxpayer's money on a recount in Ohio.


15 posted on 12/12/2004 5:06:06 PM PST by brad76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mind_of_Adam_Smith

You might want to rethink your position on George W.Bush
"smearing" Kerry, he never did and continually said he
respected Kerry's service.


16 posted on 12/12/2004 5:06:14 PM PST by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mind_of_Adam_Smith

You are misinformed.


17 posted on 12/12/2004 5:06:32 PM PST by MEG33 (Merry Christmas!..,,God Bless All Who Serve Our Country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mind_of_Adam_Smith
My medals are far less valorous than either McCain's or Kerry's, but even their modest accomplishment was tarnished- as were those of all Viet Nam vets- when the President participated in the defamation-

How curious. Because George W. Bush did no such thing. You are not building a very good case for yourself so far.

Perhaps you should do a little fact checking and get back to us once you are back on planet reality.

18 posted on 12/12/2004 5:07:00 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum europe vincendarum (Happy Hanukkah!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mind_of_Adam_Smith
When the President took office the federal government's books were balanced- and, I might add, they had been balanced by a Democrat. While 9/11 certainly had an incredible financial impact on our nation, the President borrowed huge amounts of money for tax cuts. Borrowing the money for prosecution of the Afghanistan War and for the new expenses in shoring up homeland security were ominous enough.

Sounds more like the Mind_of_Dan_Rather. Where do you get your news/information?

19 posted on 12/12/2004 5:07:22 PM PST by OSHA (Actual DUer - Kerry Won - Get Over It!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mind_of_Adam_Smith; Neets; Darksheare; scott0347; timpad; KangarooJacqui; The Scourge of Yazid; ...
Finally, he once again disingeniously participated in smearing a decorated war veteran. My medals are far less valorous than either McCain's or Kerry's, but even their modest accomplishment was tarnished- as were those of all Viet Nam vets- when the President participated in the defamation- all this from a man who, as was discovered in the last election, specifically requested NOT to serve in the war zone.

Awww, jeez....This is BS..

You might want to try getting your news from other sources than the NYT.

20 posted on 12/12/2004 5:09:01 PM PST by stands2reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mind_of_Adam_Smith

"For me, conservatism has focused on two primary goals: fiscal responsibility and limited federal involvement in our lives."

Just for starters, you have a misunderstanding of conservatism. Conservatism attempts to conserve the principles of the founding of the country. These are best annunciated in the Declaration of Independence. Republican Abraham Lincoln was this countries best articulator of those principles. Go to www.claremont.org and order Harry Jaffa's "New Birth of Freedom" and read it cover to cover.


21 posted on 12/12/2004 5:10:19 PM PST by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mind_of_Adam_Smith
My first choice was the decorated war veteran Sen. John McCain

For the record, McCain's grueling years in the Hanoi Hilton made him a popular hero and no doubt earned him many military decorations. However, simply enduring this form of living hell does not make him a military expert, nor does it qualify him to be President of the United States. The United States needs a leader and thankfully we have one in George W. Bush.

23 posted on 12/12/2004 5:10:44 PM PST by wagglebee (Memo to sKerry: the only thing Bush F'ed up was your career)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mind_of_Adam_Smith

Someone who wasn't a troll would respond to the questions given you.


24 posted on 12/12/2004 5:11:26 PM PST by stands2reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


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