Posted on 09/20/2010 8:59:59 AM PDT by julieee
“I wouldn’t turn down anyone willing to help us, through our constitutional political process, get the government’s jackboot off our neck.”
And that’s the point of SOCIAL conservatism, to get the government’s political correctness boot off of our throats. Like the bill Democrats just passed in the House which requires federal hospital patients to reveal the “sexual orientation”!
The government is also trying to make it illegal for people to say that homosexuality is a choice and a perversion. That is freedom. But if the Democrats have their way, homosexuals will be a “protected class”, meaning that anyone who criticizes one could be sued, lose their job, and even go to jail because of hate speech, hate crimes, harassment, and discrimination. That’s a tremendous loss of freedom, and I don’t know why libertarians have such a hard time seeing it.
Maybe libertarians aren’t aware that an ANONYMOUS complaint of “abuse” is all it takes to send a police officer to someone’s house, and sometimes removed from their house without a trial. That so-called “abuse” can simply be words that a THIRD-PARTY, who is forever ANONYMOUS doesn’t like, and who reports it to the government snitch line.
I am old enough to remember a time before these laws, and so I realize that the government’s social tyranny is far worse than paying higher taxes. Far, far, worse.
And libertarians also don’t seem to realize that one of the government’s most powerful ECONOMIC weapons for REDISTRIBUTION is lawsuits. The Democrats set up all kinds of ways for the “poor” to sue the “rich”, and steal their money that way. Harassment lawsuits is just one of those. The threat of such lawsuits is used to extort various concessions from companies, and so restrict their freedom in another way.
The way to accomplish all the goals you stated is to LIMIT government. Look at the role of federal government in each instance you site.
The federal government can “force” those things because it has the power to do so through MONEY, which allows it to also have size.
We MUST keep on advancing social conservativism. But so far as getting to the root of the worst purveyor of moral nilhism, that requires limited government. Only fiscal conservativism limits government. So, if that is all we can get in our elected officials this time around, that’s very worthwhile and, in the end, will advance social goals as well.
Libertarians like Paul Ryan are NOT conservatives. Libertarianism is a naive, utopian philosophy which never existed and never could work. In the real world libs work out to be extreme small government people on spending, but are totally against war (like extreme Democrats) and end up agreeing with the Democrats on all social issues like abortion.
The "boot" the government can (and does) put on our throat is the federal government's BRUTE FORCE, which comes from its power, which comes from the huge amount of money the federal government wrongly sucks up out of the private sector.
If the federal government were limited, it would not have the power or "authority" to require personal information upon a hospital admission. It would not have the power to fund abortion, to dictate the curriculum in each and every school in America, etc.
“Only fiscal conservativism limits government.”
Are you suggesting not having enough police officers to enforce the Democrat’s social laws? Not having enough court rooms for their redistribution lawsuits? Not having enough jails?
Because without those things, there is NO WAY that “fiscal conservatism” can limit any of those things I mentioned. No matter how small the rest of the government is, if there are Democratic harassments laws, plus enough police officers, jails, and court rooms, then the Democrat’s social tyranny can go on. Cutting the size of the welfare state does not prevent a social tyranny.
Sadly RBMiller crosses of Ryan from national list and places back in Budget Committee where he belongs.
You doofuses are manipulated by the media...ehen the Dems had their opportunity did they go out and tell NARAL that they have to sit aside ....hell no
The gay community....hell no.
The unilateral pacifists? hell no they set policy to get out of Afghan and Iraq, win or lose, just get out.
Where are the F ing Reagan conservatives that built the last mammoth landslide?
We want economic, social and national security conservatism.
Abortion (and many social issues) have to do more with sexual issues. If sexual responsibility was forced to become a local issue instead of being taken care of by the Federal Gov't we would see a huge increase in morality overall IMO.
If some states/municipalities chose to continue down the road of perversion that would be their responsibility and not everyone else's. I'm convinced we would see the number of abortions diminish dramatically nationally, not to mention all the other perverse behaviors out there.
This is exactly what happens. And not only is this the Constitutional scheme we are to follow, it is a favorable result for those who want to see advances in social conservatism.
The colonies themselves had many disagreements on religious and social issues, but that was something they left to sort out at the State level. (Slavery, even, eventually was left for the people to defeat at the social level.) The Union was based primarily on the need for mutual and collective DEFENSE (national security).
Could you point out where he said that?
Can you point out where he said anything approaching that?
Can you point out where he even hinted at that?
I didn't think so.
That is not the issue. The issue is HOW these social issues are resolved. There are things it is not helpful -- or CONSTITUTIONAL -- for the federal government to take on.
And, apart from that, to have any hope of saving our nation, and our freedom to fight for what is right, we have to stop the bleeding. That means it is an emergency to reduce the size of government RIGHT NOW.
The only way to reduce the size of government is to impose fiscal conservativism. This must be the highest priority in these elections.
“Pro life trumping ALL POLITICAL QUESTIONS and issues..”
####
Correct.
And what have YOU got that trumps the ongoing murder of innocents?
May I ask what your answer would be to the questions in the example at #54? Thanks.
The Republican politicians gave up on Reagan conservatism 12 years ago. Since then, they haven’t tried it at all. Many people have never even seen it.
Newt Gingrich’s congress tried Reagan conservatism, including devolution and shrinking the federal government during the 1995-1996 congress. The Democratic president wouldn’t go along, so they tried a government shut down to try and force shrinkage of the federal government.
They lost the public relations battle and lost the shutdown. Gingrich’s personal weaknesses ended his speakership and Reagan conservatism in 1997-1998, and that was the end of real conservatism.
After that the Republican politicians were too scared to even talk about getting rid of the Department of Education (DOE), like Gingrich did in 1996. (So when Senator DeMint called for elimination of the DOE yesterday, that was a rebirth. It was the first time in 14 years that any Republican dared to speak those words.)
So the Republican establishment met in 1998 and 1999, and decided to replace Reagan conservatism with “compassionate conservatism. The Republican primary voters in 2000 were given a choice between Bush (left-center) and McCain (even further left).
We “held our noses” and voted for the “lesser of two evils”, Bush. First thing he did (in 2001) was pass Teddy Kennedy’s bill turning all the Nation’s schools over to the DOE, greatly expanding it. The dream of Reagan and Gingrich was destroyed.
McCain went on a sore loser temper tantrum in 2001-5, helping the Democrats pass anything they wanted to, and blackmailing Bush into passing his campaign censorship bill.
9/11 acted like a political drug, letting the Republicans get reelected for several congresses while doing nothing. In the last Republican majority congress of 2005-6, they set records for fewest days at work. Republican House flood leader Tom Delay also announced that it was absolutely impossible to cut the budget further because there was no fat in it. Things pretty much bottomed there, along with the Republican President and majority congress trying to force amnesty on the voters in 2006.
I am suggesting the type of impacts of fiscal conservatism as I set out in #54.
What are your views on those examples? If fiscal conservatives were numerous and committed enough to repeal Obamacare, and therefore strip away the abortion programs, would that be a good thing?
And what have YOU got that trumps the ongoing murder of innocents?
Welll..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTaQW4hLGWI&feature=player_embedded#!
True...and the ONLY solution to the social issue problem IMO.
(Slavery, even, eventually was left for the people to defeat at the social level.) The Union was based primarily on the need for mutual and collective DEFENSE (national security).
Good point.
That’s very short-sighted.
Got it.
Voter fraud trumps the live dismembering of babies in the womb.
Unbelieveable.
Thank you. I get so tired of this catastrophizing. Saying it is imperative to focus on defeating those who are destroying this country is not equivalent to saying nothing else is important. Please.
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.