[Sherman Logan]

FWIW, the appropriate recognition of limits on appetites is profoundly conservative.

[RockinRight]

Sure. But having a Presidential candidate tell us that in terms of what “has” to be done is decidedly NOT conservative.

[A_perfect_lady]

FWIW, the appropriate recognition of limits on appetites is profoundly conservative.

Sure. But allowing other countries to define those limits isn't.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Not really. You're right that the source of controlling one's indulgence, the virtue of “temperance” is found in the recognition of the sine of “gluttony.”

But in the modern fascist state that Obama represents, temperance and gluttony have been replaced by the secularist “common good.” While that may be promulgated as a new virtue by Statists, experience has taught us that the “common good” is not for the good of the people, but to aid the political and economic survival of a totalitarian state that cannot compete with individualistic and especially competitive behaviors.

[spacejunkie01]

“FWIW, the appropriate recognition of limits on appetites is profoundly conservative.”

But telling others to do the same is profoundly liberal.

[smoketree]

Yeah but by choice not government mandate because the gov is not doing it’s job of promoting the general welfare but instead is stealing our money to give to others.

[latina4dubya]

the appropriate recognition of limits on appetites is profoundly conservative.

yes--left up to individuals... not for the government to enforce upon individuals...