In response to:

'Fiscal' Conservatism Needs 'Social' Conservatism

Earl29 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 6:45 PM
Nawlins says conservatives support big government. There are many conservatives here. How many support big government? I don't.
Donjindra Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 8:13 PM
Can't speak for you but most do. They want bigger military, police state, and regulations on behavior.
Anominus Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 6:54 PM
Nawlins has always claimed many silly things, Earl. No true conservative supports big government. One of his common points of contention is the "war on drugs." Personally, I am opposed to recreational drug use. I have observed the harm such drug abuse wreaks not only on the user, but also on his family, his neighbors and ultimately his society. I will continue to favor opposition to drug legalization as long as our society continues down the path of government dependence. Nawlins considers this to be "support for big government."
nawlins72 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 6:57 PM
LOL...thanks for showing me that you aren't for "big government". No siree, more spending on federal and state agencies to prevent others from the "crime" of drugs is definitely a "small government" goal.

Anominus Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 7:00 PM
I'd say that far more is spent every year caring for the welfare cases created by drug abuse than has been spent in fighting the drug war.
nawlins72 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 7:03 PM
And what does welfare have to do with my argument? As a libertarian, I am against this social program as well. This is a distraction.
Earl29 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 7:05 PM
If adults without children and others that can be hurt by their use of drugs, they can do as they please as far as I'm concerned. Huddle in your house, don't drive, and give yourself lung cancer by smoking pot is all right with me, but don't ask me to pay for your treatment. I hope I don't sound too harsh, but saving people from themselves is not in my line. Of course, people who fit that description are very very rare. Always protect the children.
nawlins72 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 7:09 PM
And where have I argued for social programs to pay for their treatments? No where.
Earl29 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 7:10 PM
Anominus is talking reality; you are talking theory. Get rid of the social program first.
nawlins72 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 7:13 PM
No, he is talking status quo, which is ever increasing spending. Even without eliminating the social program, you still save money by getting rid of the beauracracies, excessive police, prisons, etc. that deal with drug crimes. Hell, we even spend money using our military to destroy drug crops in foreign countries. This costs money, all on a foolish cause.
Earl29 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 7:22 PM
So the children need no pretection by government?
nawlins72 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 7:27 PM
Donjindra Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 8:19 PM
" I am opposed to recreational drug use. I have observed the harm such drug abuse wreaks not only on the user, but also on his family, his neighbors and ultimately his society. I will continue to favor opposition to drug legalization as long as our society continues down the path of government dependence."

That's a big spender's rationalization. Same as the left.

nawlins72 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 9:08 PM
"That's a big spender's rationalization. Same as the left."

Yep.
rmccarthy Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 6:48 PM
It's the recent tactic of pointing the finger back at the opposition, claiming what you say they do, you do (which is usually specious at best and a confession for sure on their part).
nawlins72 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 6:47 PM
Of course they don't CLAIM to be Big Government, they advocate it, while rationalizing that it's not. Support for the War On Drugs, support for military expansion across the globe, support for military intervention into foreign nations, support for aid to foreign countries, support for more police, support for protectionist policies, ad nauseum.
jmg11 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 6:52 PM
nawlins,

You recur like a minor rash. Here comes the Tinactin. And there you go.

See you next month.
Earl29 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 6:54 PM
The basic function of government is to protect the people against force and fraud. That's why we need soldiers and policemen. Are you suggesting that government ought not perform that function?
nawlins72 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 6:57 PM
nawlins72 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 7:06 PM
"The basic function of government is to protect the people against force and fraud. That's why we need soldiers and policemen. Are you suggesting that government ought not perform that function?"

This is a common retort when the concept of bloated police and military is brought up. Because the Constitution grants the power for these organizations does not mean that they are allowed blank checks to spend without limit. Should we conscript all into the military and deploy our entire nation to the ends of the globe? The Constitution says military, doesn't it?
Earl29 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 7:07 PM
Earl29 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 7:08 PM
alopekos teumesios Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 7:58 PM
Well jmg. They do say that the truth hurts.
Donjindra Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 8:16 PM
"The basic function of government is to protect the people against force and fraud. That's why we need soldiers and policemen. Are you suggesting that government ought not perform that function? "

You're rationalizing. Government is government. "Conservatives" want as much government as the left. They just want to allocate dollars differently.
jmg11 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 9:18 PM
Stick around, you'll see that nawlins can turn almost any thread into a trollerama.
jmg11 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 9:20 PM
Unfortunately, I saw nawlins reemerge, and the choice open to me was whether to repeat the truth or not.

Put nawlins on "scrollby" status -- I saved you some time.
For some years now, we have been told about a major division within American conservatism: fiscal conservatives vs. social conservatives.

This division is hurting conservatism and hurting America -- because the survival of American values depends on both fiscal and social conservatism. Furthermore, the division is logically and morally untenable. A conservative conserves all American values, not just economic ones.

By "social conservatism," I am referring to the second and third components of what I call the American Trinity -- liberty, "In God We Trust" and "E Pluribus Unum."

It is worth noting that a similar bifurcation does not exist on the left. One...

Related Tags: Conservatives