Posted on 08/31/2010 4:17:24 PM PDT by wagglebee
Correct-a-mundo.
Focus on the big prize. Associated issues will self cure.
Those “steps/points” are absolute proof that drugs rot your brain.
Social programs are responsible for runaway government spending. It costs money to please everyone and be their mommy. I'm sorry that you can't see the obvious connection.
I'm not a liberal. I'm a conservative. And the federal government has no business making abortion legal nor defining marriage. Federal backing of both costs taxpayer $$$$$.
This is Jeffersons view of government.
"The way to have safe government is not to trust it all to the one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to everyone exactly the functions in which he is competent....To let the National Government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations..... The State Governments with the Civil Rights, Laws, Police and administration of what concerns the State generally. The Counties with the local concerns, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these Republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations until it ends in the administration of everyman's farm by himself, by placing under everyone what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best." Thomas Jefferson
This 12 point thingie (sounds as though they need the Narc Anon or whatever it is 12 STEP program!) is nothing more than one of the worst phony baloney “heave on earth” nonsense I have ever seen.
It sure sounded like Princess Moonbeam wrote it. Holy cow what crap!
Well, you’re simply wrong on three counts.
Initially, I was the first poster, I believe, that said that the TeaParty should NOT take on the Social Issues.
Secondly, that doesn’t mean that social conservatives who are also economic conservatives, can’t bring their Pro Life signs.
The GOP, as big as a failure as it is, has to manage all three legs. If you think they don’t you’re wrong. The GOP can’t win without any of the three, then need economic, social, and natsecurity conservatives. Period, or they lose.
Leftist/liberal/libertarian/or whatever you want to call it social positions are in and of themselves Big Government. For a number of reasons, but time constraints allow me to post just this one, for now:
They mandate that government overturning generations and centuries - or even longer - millenia! - of cultural and legal and societal norms and restraints, to please the left and associated entities.
The conservative view is “leave things as they are and have been” or in some cases, a roll-back.
That is the small gov position. Strange you don’t see it.
“Such a Congress could outlaw funding of Planned Barrenhood and similar groups and gut many usurped powers of SCOTUS and inferior courts over Comrade Os veto if possible.”
Hey, BlackElk, long time no see.
That there is mighty cheery talk.
Nothing I've heard on this thread (abortion/gay marriage) involves cutting costs at any social program...
Social programs cost money. First, you stop them from implementing any new ones, like “gay” marriage and taxpayer funded abortions. Once you get social and fiscal conservatives in office, cut more garbage out. That’s the point. Most of your taxes are paying for nanny state garbage. Social and fiscal conservative ideals are the basics of conservatism.
Your argument is so muddled with your own brand of societal mothering it’s only because I already have a clear understanding of what fiscal conservatism actually *is*, that I still support fiscal conservatism despite you.
You don’t have a prayer of convincing anyone new.
You mean, she cannot convince anyone who is married to socially liberal positions, apparently. She makes perfect sense to me.
“Societal mothering”? Where is that part, maybe I missed a comment?
If youre not fiscally AND socially conservative, youre not conservative!
You’re a little tattle tale.
I’m not a social liberal. I just really really like a simple, fiscal strategy of fighting the high cost of government first. That’s what I’m most interested in from candidates, and that’s what I think that’s what would do us the most immediate good.
You’re still free to fight for other priorities, but those are mine.
I mean gay marriage and abortion, as the law is right now, are not fiscal cost issues, they're moral and social ones. I might agree with you on the rightness of them, but they don't save us a dime in taxes.
And that's why they're not really tea party issues to me. They're social and religious ones.
You've been here how long? And you still have no idea that you give a courtesy ping when you quote or talk about someone as BOTH little jeremiah and I pinged you? It's FR etiquette. You should know that. Would you rather that people talk about you and NOT ping you? If not, why would you want it done to someone else?
I just really really like a simple, fiscal strategy of fighting the high cost of government first.
Which will do you absolutely no good if MORE social programs are added and funded. Social and fiscal conservatism are part of the same cloth. They cannot be separated.
I’ve been here long enough to know a call for help when I see one.
Well... we’ll see.
Who’s adding social programs? Not me!
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.