Posted on 12/08/2009 1:32:01 PM PST by Bob J
We've all heard of the "litmus" tests people have put forth to gauge someones applicability to being a conservative. The problem is there are just too many options! The recent 10 point test is just too extensive, in fact I'm not sure I've ever met anyone who agrees with me on all my own my top ten conservative talking points.
So let's focus it a bit. If there were 3 issues that we all could agree on as being essentially conservative, what would those be for you? It could include right to life, small government, low taxes, strong military, 2nd amendment, belief in God, law and order, protection of Marriage, etc.
Be honest. Which three issues define not only you, but anyone you would accept as being truly "conservative" and maybe even someone who would get your vote?
Unfortunately, a Democrat who have none of these traits.
Start with NO Advocacy of a Direct Democracy, it displays no understanding of why our country was designed as it was Governmentally.
But then on to the question. Really? Just 3? Nope. ALL are important.
But perhaps they can be lumped together - Govern within the bounds of the Constitution AS WRITTEN. Everything else falls into place then. No ‘penumbras’, living document BS.
Oops, sorry I meant a Democrat would have none of these traits.
1. Small government
2. Balanced budget
3. Low taxes
“I’m just waiting to see how you turn this into an anti Sarah Palin spiel.”
6 posts to the first effort to turn this into a Palin thread!
Congrats, you get a cookie!
Thanks!
Thanks!
life, liberty and property
I get 1 and 3, right to life and property rights, but could you be more specific on 2?
>>>It could include right to life, small government, low taxes, strong military, 2nd amendment, belief in God, law and order, protection of Marriage, etc. <<<
All the issues you listed can be combined into 3 core values:
1) Belief in God includes right to life and protection of marriage. (That said, I’d accept a conservative who wasn’t particularly religious, but consistently demonstrated that he/she was pro-life and opposed the agenda of the homosexualists.)
2) Small government - Low taxes will follow.
3) Security - includes a strong military, protection of 2nd Amendment rights, and law and order.
All of these things are non-negotiable, in my book. If I had to prioritize right to life would come first, then secuirty then small government.
Thanks for being honest and fair!
But someone could be pro life stricly on constitutional grounds. If they were this way but say a Jew who didn’t believe in Jesus, would they still be a conservative in your book?
What does this have to do with Tiger Woods?
1. Individual rights, including rights to Life, Liberty, property, self-defense and all other unalienable rights.
2. Small constitutional government, including strictly limited enumerated powers, separation of powers, state sovereignty, self-government, etc, as intended and ratified.
3. Strong national security, national defense.
Will settle for nothing less.
Usurpers be damned!
Good one...heheh.
But one poster did try to make this about Sarah? Doesn’t that count?
Yes, as long as they consistently upheld Christian values, such of right to life, and traditional marriage, I would consider them social conservatives, whether or not they are Christians.
Of course, to be true conservatives they would also need to be for small government and strong on security including strong military, pro-2nd amendement and pro law and order.
Jim, if we could convey THAT simple message across the country, without all the ideological bric-a-brack, we’d win 4 tims out of five if not more.
I would make one edit, change #3 to simply SECURITY...as an individual and as a nation.
KISS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.