How many of you small government conservatives want to...

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.
5. yes.
6. Yes.
7. Yes.

And which freedoms do you wish to restrict?

No
yes yes yes
no - but give vouchers for non-participants to go to private school
partial yes - make socal security need test based
no

not on the list:

Eliminate all business subsidies, particularly Ethanol and Farm subsidies

Simply the tax code while keeping progresivity the same, cut IRS budget by 90% as a result

get rid of Dept of Agriculture, about half of the state department

Remove the commerce clause from the constitution, along with all laws based on the commerce clause

On the above:

Yes.

Partial yes. Simplify tax code by eliminating income tax and replacing with sales tax. No progressivity at all.

Yes.

Why?!*

Never mind. I was thinking of Article 1, Section 9 paragraphs 4 &5 as well as Section 10, paragraph 2. I agree the commerce clause has been a tool for abuse and expansion (rather than limitation) of federal government powers. I needs to go (or be much more severely worded to avoid the abuse.)

End the Fed, too.

Yes!!!

hehe! I see you're in for a new round of dollar-collapse!!!!

Yes, we might be looking at one...due to the Fed!

yeah, thats what I meant.

No. I know what you meant. I was correcting you.

Yes and we shouldn't have troops outside of our own borders. We can be the cop for ourselves.


Not all drugs can be legalized just like all of anything cannot be legalized but certainly many more drugs in terms of self-medication and enjoyment should be legal.

Agreed.


We don't have dry counties or days in California, but sure.



Eliminate public education, no for it earns a good return. However we can eliminate the federal department of education and move to statewide vouchers.


I doubt it would find support but it could likely be moved back to the original purpose which is giving someone the last 3-6 months of their life expectancy off. In most instances that would mean being about 75 years old to qualify for it.


These should be state concerns and someone can stand for not having them federalized and still desire to see state action on certain matters.

Military spending, fraught with waste, fraud, abuse and earmarks is my favorite example of a system gone bad! I use it on my lefty friends all the time!


I am a libertarian. My litmus is comparing it to alcohol. If said illegal drug is not more dangerous or damaging than alcohol then I can't justify it being illegal. IMO alcohol is rather dangerous and damaging.


That's a hard one (no pun) because people can be coerced to do thing they'd otherwise not do. I'm not sure we could make prostitution legal in a way that would not compromise many women. Not that we are doing a great job protecting them now.


Totally on board with that one. Not being a religeous person I can see no reason why I should not be allowed to buy a bottle of wine from Costco at 11:55am on a fucking sunday.

Please answer yes or no to the above 4 and the following 3 below.



Eliminate the government monopoly on education production? Yea let's roll the dice. Publicly funded education? Obviously a benefit to the country that should continue.


Absolutely. Reform the transfer payment from young to old into a real investment for an individual that would have a minimum payment that the government would make up the difference if a working individual couldn't make the full contribution. Said investment would be done in safe investment (slightly better than the lie that passes for pensions now) for a nest egg that pays off at a minimum level at retirement at the age the person chooses. Other disabled people can be handled in a different system.


Eliminate government funding or government run healthcare? Eliminate government run health care/insurance for sure. Think about how much you like the way the government buys and pays for the military now. Do you want that applied to health care?

1. Yes
2. If you want to legalize ALL drugs, then you ALSO have to hold people responsible for what they do while under the influence, regardless of the fact that they had absolutely no idea what they were doing.
3. Sure... but, like all vices, it'll still have to have some sort of restrictions: licenses?, health screenings?, location restrictions? (like opening a brothel next to a church.
4. That's a state law, not a federal law... and if a state wants such restrictions, that's up to the state... MANY of our federal laws are things that should be left to the states... read the constitution and you can't help but agree with me on that.

5. No ... but... give vouchers or a tax-credit to families with school-age children that DO NOT utilize the public education system. Also limit what federal funds can be used for... If a public high school can afford to build a multi-million dollar stadium and have sports programs, then they obviously have more money than they need and shouldn't receive federal funds.
6. Yes, and refund me everything I've payed into it.
7. Yes... outside of the military.


Add to the list... federal lawmakers may not exempt themselves from ANY law or program that they pass, and may not create and program for themselves that doesn't also apply to all citizens.

Probably. I expect that there's a lot of waste and fraud going on under the guise of 'National Security'. However, I'm not sure this is mostly in the U.S Defense budget. Aren't there like 200+ agencies working under the Homeland Security portfolio? Is that part of the 'Defense' budget?


Absolutely not. I know it's not popular today, but we are supposed to be our brother's keeper. One can argue with a somewhat straight face for Marijuana legalization, but legalizing drugs like ecstasy, crack and others is crazy and will lead to a generation of seriously brain-damaged kids.


No. Liberals like to make the case that prostitution is about female self empowerment and self employment. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the selling of sexual abuse and leads to the spread of disease and widespread human trafficking, even in countries where the practice is legalized.

Is it too much to ask that Liberals be anti-slavery?


Here in Canada we sell liquor only in government-run monopoly stores, and that seems to be working well. I don't drink and don't really care one way or the other, as long as drunk driving, addiction and public intoxication issues are dealt with.


No, but include a robust private education sector to foster competition. Fedex really helped focus the postal service.


I don't know enough about U.S. Social Security to offer any good suggestions.


No, but as far as possible give subsidies directly to people, and let them purchase their own care.
Subsidizing medical insurance companies and hospitals directly isn't working.

<cough> *** Afghanistan *** </cough>


Supposed to be our brother's keeper????

Who says...wait....err...it's God isn't it?

Actually legalizing all drugs would eliminate brain-damaged kids (well....the ones who are damaged by drug ingestion anyway...probably not much we can do for the Young Conservatives).

It happens to be a fact that Heroin - for example - is one of the safest drugs there is period taken in pure form. It is the impurities that kill people - either through ingestion of toxic substances in the mix or else diluted/cut bags making it impossible to know one's dosage.

Also I think that Heroin - again as an example - does not cause any lasting organ damage whatsoever maintained over decades long usage in a proper context.

I would argue also that certain drugs - opiates and psychedelics for example - are actually beneficial to society. Well, in the way that makes you see through the bullshit of the rulers...which is why they want them banned.

Conversely, other drugs - skunk, MDMA, coke - imo tend to make you either buy into society or somehow 'not see through the bullshit' which is why despite rising drug use over the last decades there has been no revolutionary thought amongst the druggie classes as in the 60s but rather a headlong lemming like rush to embrace everything their overlords can throw at them without once bringing any critical or intellectual capacity into play.

It's all part of a plan: these drugs are available because they are NEEDED to be available and most of them are merely just another creation that has come lumbering out of the CIAs Frankenstein labs along with God-knows what other horrors.


Again, like drugs, the case outlined above is only true in the context of the activity being illegal.

Take an example: is it true to say that alcohol is a dangerous substance subject to no distillation control or health check, is illegally brewed and created in an exploitative manner and is part of a business run by murderers and criminals with no conscience?

No.

Under prohibition it was true.

Want to stop 'slavery' ? Legalize prostitution.

And don't let Fundies anywhere near the law-making process. They are cut off from most human processes but in the area of sex they are not just cut off but in orbit past the constellation of Coma Berenices.


Not at all. It was Liberals who stopped it in the first place when it was yet another wonderful Right Wing gift to civilization.


So: most dangerous and lethal drug available which is responsible for more deaths than any other: don't really care one way or the other

One of safest drugs available whose deaths don't register in relation: Absolutely not.

Right. Got that.

Absolute nonsense.

It depends on what the reductions are. I'm not in favor of it increasing at this point, unless we get into some kind of emergency military situation. Efficiencies do need to be found. Last...I would remind you that Defense is a Constitutional responsibility of our government.


I'm more of a libertarian as well. That means I don't like the government telling me what to put in my body. However, I also think some substances are extremely harmful and dangerous, which means we can't have them being sold at Walgreens and Target, lest we risk a public health epidemic. I would favor decriminalizing use and even purchase. However, I would favor punishing possession with the intent to distribute. Certain "herbal" substances should be legal entirely.


Agreed, though I think laws would be needed to prevent open solicitation in public (e.g. "street walkers").


Blue laws like this are less and less common. There are some places where they still exist (in the South, mostly), but yes, I agree.


No, though I'm a PS teacher, so I'm biased. Public Education has many flaws, but also does many things right. Certainly, reform is needed. School choice in some form would go a long way. Children shouldn't be tied to a failing school because of lack of income and/or where they live. Then again, current government efforts (NCLB) aren't doing the job. We're approaching "blood from a rock" with the current testing regimen.


Yes, but....it won't happen. We're not even talking about it, and we have politicians putting seniors in campaign commercials saying that "Mike RunningForOffice wants to cut my social security 50%. I can't buy my food and medicine with half my SS!"

I do think this: The notion that we all have a "right" to retire is absurd. The notion that we are all forced to contribute to the system is absurd. I think the system should be phased out over 30 years, to ensure that everyone who was promised SS gets it. People like me (35 years old tomorrow) would get a greatly reduced benefit in exchange for gradually phased out SS tax.

Obviously it will never happen. So, what is the realistic solution? In addition to major income tax reform, fund SS through a national sales tax. Eliminate SS payroll taxes entirely. This way, the rich pay more because they buy more. People above a certain income level should receive reduced or no benefits. This needs to be done in conjunction with income tax reform, though. That's another matter.


Of course not. These are perhaps the only programs that should be based on income rather than ability. If you're of lesser means and/or unable to get insurance, I believe the government should be helping you get health care. You should be able to buy into a program at a reduced cost.

This dovetails into welfare/assistance reform at the federal and state levels. IMO, we should change the system from a need based system, to an ability based system. Unemployment insurance aside, we should be providing cash assistance only to those who do not possess the mental/physical ability to work and provide for themselves. Because we are not going to let people starve, we should maintain and improve programs such as food stamps, which would be redeemable for...ACTUAL FOOD. A similar program should be created for housing and clothing. In other words, this help make homelessness a thing of the past. People who claimed hardship would be given enough to live at the most basic level dignity requires. You want anything more? Get a job...again, if you're able.

Oh...I forgot...Frank is one of the 'black is white' and 'truth is lies' brigade. My mistake.

Here is some more 'nonsense' in support...err I mean to 'refute' my 'lies':


Link

The idea that the abolition of slavery was the work of one British political party shows clearly how deluded you are.

Any first year student of history, or almost anyone who's read a book, can refute such garbage.

How is this nonsense? Most agree Lincoln ended slavery and he was extremely liberal for his times. Some see the R next to his name and make the mistake of thinking in the current party terms yet it wasn't until the conservative southern Democrats bailed on the Democratic party over civil rights that the Democratic Party became THE liberal party, and the Republican Party THE conservative party.

Conservatives don't want anything to ever change with the times. Anything that has ever happened in this country was done by progressives... Women's Right to Vote, Workplace Safety Laws, Social Security, Food Stamps/WIC, Unemployment Insurance, Freedom of Information Act, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Monopoly Laws, EPA, FDA, etc... and as you can clearly see in this post conservatives want it all reversed and repealed because everyone is perfect and nothing could ever go wrong. The problem is that humans are not perfect and laws are needed to protect the people from things such as corporations whose only concern is their profit margin.

Absolute nonsense.



And yet "progressives" insist that we continue to give them more power over more things and more people and more aspects of our lives. Odd.

Thank you for signing up to post a collection of standard leftie....um....liberal....um....progressive talking points.

And still the wingers just shout that they can make fire but when asked to do prove it keep shouting "yes..WE CAN MAKE FIRE...see!???".

And because their words had forked no lightning their anger sparks but no flame... yet the words are all they have....they use them as a weapon but it does not connect and the sound of whistling emptiness blows tumbleweed through the cavernous spaces of a millions wasted minds....

While the rest of yawn and turn over.

You really need to give examples of what conservatives have contributed if you want to rebut his argument.

Yes, "conservative"=racist. I believe that is your point.


"Anything?" I don't know about that. I do think that conservatives believe in the principles and system of government that was established at the outset. Naturally, they oppose changing it significantly.


That's just silly.


In other words, every socialist-progressive idea was supported by progressives. Not that all of the above are socialist-progressive, and not that they are all bad...but the point stands. One could easily counter by saying that "every tax cut in history was put forth by conservatives." Big surprise there.


That's a really warped view of conservatism. I think you are confusing conservatives with anarchists or strict libertarians. Conservatives--at least ones like me--believe the government exists for the purposes stated in the Constitution. Conservatives believe the government should provide for the common defense, maintain the infrastructure, ensure basic law and order, and provide public services such as education. Conservatives oppose the Nanny State--a cradle to grave mentality that embraces government as a provider. We have never believed people are perfect, but we also know that government is far less perfect. We believe people should provide for themselves, if able. We believe an abundance of social welfare programs actually makes people more poor. We do not believe corporations are evil as you seem to imply, but most of us favor some safeguards to "protect" people, as you state.

Hopefully that clears a few things up for you.

Fair enough. Though, I was just making the point that one shouldn't be surprised when secular progressives do, you know...secular progressive things.

Conservatives voted against women's right to vote, against ending slavery, against monopoly laws and workplace safety requirements, and are currently against gays having equal rights. I have put in hours of research and there are very few examples where the party of no ever did anything. Im not saying this is entirely bad as traditional values is their mantra, they stick to it, and half the Country wants this.

Apologies if I got a little carried away earlier as opinions will always differ. My main point was the history of our current 2 party system and I will attempt to explain further.

The Republican Party came into existance in the 1850's because the Democratic Party and Whig Party refused to abolish slavery or adopt progressive platforms. The Republican Party, at it outset, was EXTREMELY liberal. It remained pretty progressive right up until the early 1900's. Teddy Roosevelt, the last liberal Republican president, decided to run against the Republican nominee in 1912 because he felt the nominee wasn't liberal enough. Beginning around that time, Republicans began to align more with the wealthy. Up until the 1960's the Democratic party had 2 branches - the very conservative racist Southern faction and the liberal northern faction. When liberal Democrats and Republicans pushed through Civil Rights laws in the 60's, southern Democrats bolted the party and voted for George Wallace, a racist governor, rather than the Democratic nominee. Nixon capitalized on the division in the Democratic Party and won in 68 & 72 by pulling conservative southern Democrats into Republican ranks. The flip was made complete by Ronald Reagan, who's stated support for 'states rights' was pretty much a code word for racist southerners who opposed school integration and black voting rights.

Wow. we had no idea.
It's always so enlightening when liberals register on AI just to teach us their warped viewed of history.

Yeah Gafflation...

don't you know that it was Liberals that killed the Jews in Nazi Germany, Liberals who invented slavery and maintained it, Liberals who prevented women's rights, Liberals who started all the wars???

Don't you know that things are their opposites now?? Are you a moran or something???? REMEMBER LIBERALS ARE CALLED LIBERALS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT LIBERAL.

Progressives are called progressive because they are conservative.

Conservatives are progressive.

Jeez....I'm only sorry people like Frank have to put up with this Bullshit....imagine how such stupidity makes him feel????

aww. This freedom fighter shall have to retire and will never sign up to another forum again. I do try my best to make it clear when I am stating fact or opinion. Frank says all History books are wrong but for anyone else who didn't know about the party realignment in the 60's.

History of the Democratic Party

History of the Republican Party

SDW pointed out
Possible, let see. I would say that if you said yes to all 7 items on this list you are Libertarian not a Conservative. In my opinion a Conservative does not want to legalize drugs and prostitution nor do they want to do away with ALL social programs or do any deep cuts to the military as a Libertarian would. Progressives like myself have pushed for the 1st four but it always get blocked by Conservatives. And yes, we know SSA is botched but we are those crazy animal and plant lovers, right? so it would make sense that our heart is too big to put who know how many senior citizens deeper into poverty. We all agree that the money could be used more efficiently but I look forward to paying my taxes and doing my part in contributing to my Country.

Anyone who joins a site to post nonsense like saying some particular party in the past was "extremely liberal" deserves to be mocked.

Modern liberal issues like On Demand Abortion, Same Sex Marriage and opening Drug Injection sites would have been resolutely rejected by the former 'liberals' you are pretending to embrace.

Really? OK. do you take any tax deductions when calculating your tax liability come tax time? Do you pay the maximum amount that you could given your income?

Alright Frank, everything is relative as so I assumed it would go without saying that they where the liberals OF THAT TIME PERIOD. I give up, maybe someday you will come out from under your rock and read a book other than the Bible.

Quite the comment. 'Giving up' like that on post number 5?

You sound frustrated with me, which is odd for someone who just registered. Since we haven't discussed religion indepth in this, your first thread, I assume you're another regular poster hiding under a new name?

Have you ever discussed religion in depth Frank? Sorry I missed that...

No, they can merely quote their own dogma. (And many can't even do that very well.)

Well, actually.....


Well, actually....


No, they are called progressives because "liberals" have been discredited. The word sounds so much better!


Conservatives are what liberals once were.



Then you're the one making yourself mad. It's sort of a self-inflicted strawman of sorts.

My God...he DOES actually believe al those things....I just thought of the stupidest parody I could off the cuff...

And it turned out to be TRUE