Posted on 05/10/2002 8:26:22 AM PDT by Starmaker
I am somewhere to the right of Barry Goldwater, slightly to the left of Attila the Hun.
"The Rules don't apply to me."
Congratulations. You are now a Liberal.
Well no, it doesn't. Faith and tradition are leftwing values? Looking at the WOD through the lens of supporting societal interests over rights of the individual is also not a liberal trait. I don't know what this author is smoking, but I'm having none of it.
Oh, well, at least Starmaker didn't post the article in all bold text. That was refreshing.
*** Translation - these labels don't mean anything ***
I really love that sentence.It drives my Lib. Associates Crazy,when I say things like that.I've been called Uncompassionate, Rude, Harsh,Nazi,Uncaring,Filthy Republican-----all of which are completely laughable.I think you have to attempt to try and get a job.Noone should be able to receive benefits (those are partly MY tax dollars you know)w/out trying,and a hearty attempt at that,and more than once.Hell,in the real world Nothing is Free.You have to EARN IT!
I am philosophically a classical liberal, although a social conservative when it comes to family issues (which are not the province of government anyway). This places me in the far right of the American political spectrum, although I still have strong disagreements with most American "conservatives" on many social and economic issues.
That is so uncompassionate saying we have to eat our bread by the sweat of our brow! After all, we know that the government can just print more money to give to the lazy--I mean misfortunate.
Conservatism from the foregoing we find that this term conveys the following:
Using the above definition, is President Bush a conservative?
Believing something and putting it into practice are two different things.
A free market and the personal acquisition of property by individuals:
Steel tariffs?Individual freedoms and property rights are representative of attendant moral, religious, political, and civil rights:
Patriot Act?In accordance with the Constitution, the federal government is limited to acting in those areas wherein the states themselves do not have that ability, in inter-state matters and in foreign relations:
$26.5 billion increase in education spending?There is great importance placed on separation of powers, judicial review, and states' rights as opposed to federal power:
Military tribunals?
You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding.
You have to believe that the same public school teacher who can't teach 4th graders how to read, is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
You have to believe that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and doctors are overpaid.
You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of Chinese communists.
You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.
You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being gay is natural.
You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but pasty, revisionist activists who've never been outside Seattle do.
You have to believe that self esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.
You have to believe there was no housing before HUD.
You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start wars.
You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels, can't deliver the quality that PBS does.
You have to believe that without a federal Department of Energy, there would be no gasoline or electricity.
You have to believe the NRA is bad, because they stand up for all of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for a few parts of the Constitution.
You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are too high.
You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez, and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than George Washington, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas A. Edison.
You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't.
You have to believe second-hand smoke is more dangerous than anthrax or sarin gas.
You have to believe Rosie O'Donnell is brilliant.
You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.
Liberals have faith in government, and seek to strengthen it.
There is also a group of people who identify themselves as conservatives, but seek to use the force of government to institute morality. Is this consistent with a definition where a conservative seeks to have the minimum government intervention? Or do these people fit somewhere outside the conservative spectrum? Or is the definition wrong?
Moreover, there are some people who seek to relegate all these issues to the individual states, and let each state decide for itself. What are these people called? Is there a difference between a federal action and THE SAME action at the state level?
What in the hell are moral, religious and political rights? The author just invented a concept as to negate natural rights. Pretty typical of those who call themselves "liberals" amd "conservatives".
Amen.
Well, that may or may not have been a decent 1960's definition, but it won't fly today.
I am always distressed by how many conservatives define conservatism as some sort of sheeple-like obedience to the "law" or the "rules". Conservatism is about standing on a set of PRINCIPALS. Laws and rules (especially today) often run counter to conservative principals.
I don't know about anyone else, but I have not been in a coma for the last 3 decades. The precious rules that you define conservatism as a blind obedience to are no longer, for the most part, moral or constitutional. They are made by anti-freedom, anti-American, counter-culture interests.
So yes, as a conservative, I can proudly say that sometimes, the rules don't apply to me either.
When does conservatism stop being defind as blind obedience in your eyes?
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.