Here we go MLB. Here's your chance to prove to me why I am not a real conservative. Let's try to keep this discussion simple and between us. It gets confusing when we have to debate five people at once.

Let's start by you explaining what a real conservative is.

Keep in mind "conservative" is much more than a fiscally small government.

Go.

I know two...you eat kale and you order espresso with chai

Quote: Let's try to keep this discussion simple and between us.

PM feature much?

and what do you know. Two people not MLB respond.

Ok, I'll bite.

There are a bunch of different "conservative" ideals. My main basis for the sake of today's politics relates to social values and fiscal values. A true conservative is socially and fiscally conservative.

Socially, they want the traditional society, not progressive. They don't want gay rights, abortion, or anything related to those. They want marriage to be between a man and a woman without divorce. They want people to not have children out of wedlock, not teach sex in school, and certainly not talk to the kids about homosexuality. They want people to go to church every Sunday as well, in general.

Fiscally, I think wikipedia says it best:

Quote:Fiscal conservatism is the economic philosophy of prudence in government spending and debt.[31] Edmund Burke, in his Reflections on the Revolution in France, argued that a government does not have the right to run up large debts and then throw the burden on the taxpayer:

...[I]t is to the property of the citizen, and not to the demands of the creditor of the state, that the first and original faith of civil society is pledged. The claim of the citizen is prior in time, paramount in title, superior in equity. The fortunes of individuals, whether possessed by acquisition or by descent or in virtue of a participation in the goods of some community, were no part of the creditor's security, expressed or implied...[T]he public, whether represented by a monarch or by a senate, can pledge nothing but the public estate; and it can have no public estate except in what it derives from a just and proportioned imposition upon the citizens at large.

Most conservatives believe that government action cannot solve society's problems, such as poverty and inequality. Many believe that government programs that seek to provide services and opportunities for the poor actually encourage dependence and reduce self-reliance. Most conservatives oppose affirmative action policies-that is, policies in employment, education, and other areas that aim to counteract past discrimination by giving special help to members of disadvantaged groups. Conservatives believe that the government should not give special treatment to individuals on the basis of group identity.

Many conservatives, especially in the United States, believe that the government should not play a major role in regulating business and managing the economy. They typically oppose efforts to charge high tax rates and to redistribute income to assist the poor. Such efforts, they argue, do not properly reward people who have earned their money through hard work.

(10-01-2014 11:24 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  and what do you know. Two people not MLB respond.

I'm you though.

(10-01-2014 11:25 AM)mlb Wrote:  Ok, I'll bite.

There are a bunch of different "conservative" ideals. My main basis for the sake of today's politics relates to social values and fiscal values. A true conservative is socially and fiscally conservative.

Socially, they want the traditional society, not progressive. They don't want gay rights, abortion, or anything related to those. They want marriage to be between a man and a woman without divorce. They want people to not have children out of wedlock, not teach sex in school, and certainly not talk to the kids about homosexuality. They want people to go to church every Sunday as well, in general.

Fiscally, I think wikipedia says it best:

Quote:Fiscal conservatism is the economic philosophy of prudence in government spending and debt.[31] Edmund Burke, in his Reflections on the Revolution in France, argued that a government does not have the right to run up large debts and then throw the burden on the taxpayer:

...[I]t is to the property of the citizen, and not to the demands of the creditor of the state, that the first and original faith of civil society is pledged. The claim of the citizen is prior in time, paramount in title, superior in equity. The fortunes of individuals, whether possessed by acquisition or by descent or in virtue of a participation in the goods of some community, were no part of the creditor's security, expressed or implied...[T]he public, whether represented by a monarch or by a senate, can pledge nothing but the public estate; and it can have no public estate except in what it derives from a just and proportioned imposition upon the citizens at large.

Most conservatives believe that government action cannot solve society's problems, such as poverty and inequality. Many believe that government programs that seek to provide services and opportunities for the poor actually encourage dependence and reduce self-reliance. Most conservatives oppose affirmative action policies-that is, policies in employment, education, and other areas that aim to counteract past discrimination by giving special help to members of disadvantaged groups. Conservatives believe that the government should not give special treatment to individuals on the basis of group identity.

Many conservatives, especially in the United States, believe that the government should not play a major role in regulating business and managing the economy. They typically oppose efforts to charge high tax rates and to redistribute income to assist the poor. Such efforts, they argue, do not properly reward people who have earned their money through hard work.

I am going to ignore your copy and paste job because I want your definition.

In the portion that came from you I will correct a couple fallacies.

1. Gay rights is a catch phrase. It is not a set of actual rights.
2. Sex in taught in school. That is also a fallacious claim. Conservatives want the basic cirriculum taught in our schools and believe sex ed should be left up to the parent. HOWEVER, some conservative are ok with a electorate program for older students with parental permission.

3. You are correct about gay marriage. If you believe gays should share the same ceremonial definition of marriage as straights, you can automatically assume you are not a social conservative.

4. Talking to kids about homosexuality. Again, another fallacious claim. Who is talking to them about it and where? What is the context?

5. You do no have to be religious or even go to Church to be a conservative. That was a silly comment you should have left out.


Now if you want to stay on the social issues, we can delved deeper. There is so much more to it.

Then we can move on to the fiscal side. However, I want to hear your reasoning why I am not a real conservative.

(10-01-2014 11:39 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Then we can move on to the fiscal side. However, I want to hear your reasoning why I am not a real conservative.

You support a party that continually has grown the gov't and pushed for more spending. Whether for Wall Street bailouts or a larger military, wars in the middle east, etc.... those are all against the fiscal conservative ideals. Homeland Security and TSA were both pushed by the Republicans are huge boondoggles hence the reason the libertarian party is against them. They are true fiscal conservatives (bud admittedly, not socially conservative).

(10-01-2014 12:10 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 11:39 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Then we can move on to the fiscal side. However, I want to hear your reasoning why I am not a real conservative.

You support a party that continually has grown the gov't and pushed for more spending. Whether for Wall Street bailouts or a larger military, wars in the middle east, etc.... those are all against the fiscal conservative ideals. Homeland Security and TSA were both pushed by the Republicans are huge boondoggles hence the reason the libertarian party is against them. They are true fiscal conservatives (bud admittedly, not socially conservative).

Actually, whenever an establishment type that helped cause this mess is primaried, most of us including Okla have supported their defeat. It is the liberals and the libertarians that always support establishment GOP in these battles. See the Eric Cantor threads. See the Thad Cochran threads. Heck, see the Ted Cruz thread from just last week. The libertarians are the hypicrites, not the conservatives. They claim they are disinfranchised by the GOP and their spending orgies and then come up with other reasons not to support candidates trying to do something about it.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(10-01-2014 12:10 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 11:39 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Then we can move on to the fiscal side. However, I want to hear your reasoning why I am not a real conservative.

You support a party that continually has grown the gov't and pushed for more spending. Whether for Wall Street bailouts or a larger military, wars in the middle east, etc.... those are all against the fiscal conservative ideals. Homeland Security and TSA were both pushed by the Republicans are huge boondoggles hence the reason the libertarian party is against them. They are true fiscal conservatives (bud admittedly, not socially conservative).

Grow the government for what? Protecting us from financial collapse or more social programs for the liberal agenda?

I am not for bailing out people who break the law of deliberately misuse funds.

(10-01-2014 12:29 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Grow the government for what? Protecting us from financial collapse or more social programs for the liberal agenda?

I am not for bailing out people who break the law of deliberately misuse funds.

You continue to tell those of us whom don't support the big spending Republicans or the bigger spending Democrats that we are ruining the country. I'm sorry, if the Republicans went back to their original ideals then I could vote for them (even if I didn't agree with their social views). The current GOP is nothing more than big govt control freaks.

(10-01-2014 12:39 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 12:29 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Grow the government for what? Protecting us from financial collapse or more social programs for the liberal agenda?

I am not for bailing out people who break the law of deliberately misuse funds.

You continue to tell those of us whom don't support the big spending Republicans or the bigger spending Democrats that we are ruining the country. I'm sorry, if the Republicans went back to their original ideals then I could vote for them (even if I didn't agree with their social views). The current GOP is nothing more than big govt control freaks.

define big spending by the GOP. I am a conservative before I am a Republican. So what do I supposedly stand behind?


Sadly what you don't get is that social views dictate how fiscally responsible society is. That's the fatal flaw in the libertarian movement.

(10-01-2014 12:42 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  define big spending by the GOP. I am a conservative before I am a Republican. So what do I supposedly stand behind?

Sadly what you don't get is that social views dictate how fiscally responsible society is. That's the fatal flaw in the libertarian movement.

Iraq, Afghanistan, TARP, the Federal Reserve, DoD waste, NSA...

Being open to gay marriage does not make a society irresponsible fiscally.

(10-01-2014 12:46 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 12:42 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  define big spending by the GOP. I am a conservative before I am a Republican. So what do I supposedly stand behind?

Sadly what you don't get is that social views dictate how fiscally responsible society is. That's the fatal flaw in the libertarian movement.

Iraq

What about Iraq?

(10-01-2014 12:49 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 12:46 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 12:42 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  define big spending by the GOP. I am a conservative before I am a Republican. So what do I supposedly stand behind?

Sadly what you don't get is that social views dictate how fiscally responsible society is. That's the fatal flaw in the libertarian movement.

Iraq

What about Iraq?

I was typing and accidentally hit the post button. Go back and reread my post.

(10-01-2014 12:46 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 12:42 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  define big spending by the GOP. I am a conservative before I am a Republican. So what do I supposedly stand behind?

Sadly what you don't get is that social views dictate how fiscally responsible society is. That's the fatal flaw in the libertarian movement.

Iraq, Afghanistan, TARP, the Federal Reserve, DoD waste, NSA...

Being open to gay marriage does not make a society irresponsible fiscally.

Sure it does, because it redefines the family unit and creates more people without a stable support system. Marriage is designed to promote a healhty family...THUS PRODUCING a healthier citizen. It's more often than not a unhealthy situation to raise kids in, and that creates the need for more programs to correct the psychological and societal issues these kids face.

Drug use is sky high in the gay community...so is abuse. Your answer is to make drugs more readily available to them and you call that conservative?

(10-01-2014 12:46 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 12:42 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  define big spending by the GOP. I am a conservative before I am a Republican. So what do I supposedly stand behind?

Sadly what you don't get is that social views dictate how fiscally responsible society is. That's the fatal flaw in the libertarian movement.

Iraq, Afghanistan, TARP, the Federal Reserve, DoD waste, NSA...

Being open to gay marriage does not make a society irresponsible fiscally.

You are dead wrong about downsizing the military. Other than that, where does it say those are GOP or conservative programs? All of which have been approved with bipartisan support...and I don't necessarily approve of them.

They are much to broad to be for or against unless you dissect them individually.

I am not sure Iraq was the best strategy, but I am all for wiping terrorists that want to blow up our buildings off the map. Again..that is a conservative patriotic notion.

Continue

(10-01-2014 12:52 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Sure it does, because it redefines the family unit and creates more people without a stable support system. Marriage is designed to promote a healhty family...THUS PRODUCING a healthier citizen. It's more often than not a unhealthy situation to raise kids in, and that creates the need for more programs to correct the psychological and societal issues these kids face.

There are just as many people without a stable support system whom are in traditional families. I'd rather have 2 committed "parents" (mom and dad, dad and dad, or mom and mom) than a single parents or 2 parents whom hate each other and show it. That is where the real harm comes in.

Quote:Drug use is sky high in the gay community...so is abuse. Your answer is to make drugs more readily available to them and you call that conservative?

Drug use and abuse is sky high in all communities. Even wealthy white communities have issues.

I fully admitted you are a social conservative (and that is where the drug talk would come into play), I just said you are not a fiscal conservative otherwise you wouldn't support Mitt Romney, George W. Bush, or anybody else in the current Republican establishment.

(10-01-2014 12:46 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 12:42 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  define big spending by the GOP. I am a conservative before I am a Republican. So what do I supposedly stand behind?

Sadly what you don't get is that social views dictate how fiscally responsible society is. That's the fatal flaw in the libertarian movement.

Iraq, Afghanistan, TARP, the Federal Reserve, DoD waste, NSA...

Being open to gay marriage does not make a society irresponsible fiscally.

You should get behind Ted Cruz. He'd agree with you on all those issues sans gay marriage, which he hasn't tried to stop and the courts will make a moot point before 2016 anyway.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(10-01-2014 12:58 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 12:52 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Sure it does, because it redefines the family unit and creates more people without a stable support system. Marriage is designed to promote a healhty family...THUS PRODUCING a healthier citizen. It's more often than not a unhealthy situation to raise kids in, and that creates the need for more programs to correct the psychological and societal issues these kids face.

There are just as many people without a stable support system whom are in traditional families. I'd rather have 2 committed "parents" (mom and dad, dad and dad, or mom and mom) than a single parents or 2 parents whom hate each other and show it. That is where the real harm comes in.

Quote:Drug use is sky high in the gay community...so is abuse. Your answer is to make drugs more readily available to them and you call that conservative?

Drug use and abuse is sky high in all communities. Even wealthy white communities have issues.

I fully admitted you are a social conservative (and that is where the drug talk would come into play), I just said you are not a fiscal conservative otherwise you wouldn't support Mitt Romney, George W. Bush, or anybody else in the current Republican establishment.

Drug use is not sky high in all communities. Communities where kids have two parents at home, a stable upbringing and a active social life have record low numbers.

Physical, sexual and emotional abuse, coupled with drug use is sky high in the gay community. Marriage was designed to protect the family unit and gay marriage was not part of that equation.

You are just as fiscally liberal as you accuse me.

The bigger hypocrisy comes into play when you say you want less government intervention until the government is forcing people to accept your liberal agenda.

IE gay marriage, government controlled, legal drugs.