"If you recall, I said I agree with most of their views; not all of them. I do not want the federal government in my life at all. I am a huge believer in states rights."
Excellent.
"I believe your religious conservative comment is out of whack. I consider myself a religious conservative/religious right and that definition is way off base."
How so?
All I said was that if you require... if you CALL UPON a more powerful, more intrusive federal government to enforce particular behavioral requirements, social 'norms', etc., on the population --- then you are an ENABLER of BIG GOVERNMENT.
I believe that is self-evident.
"The picture you paint is the Left's definition of the religious right..."
I didn't 'define' anything. I merely pointed out the *obvious*. A more intrusive, more regulatory central government means a BIGGER GOVERNMENT... and less individual rights.
That is MY VIEW... and I believe it is a viewpoint more consistent with literally *decades* of conservative/libertarian thought then with 'liberal' or 'leftist' thought. Liberals generally are *comfortable* with a bigger, stronger central government. Not me.
"I made the socialist comment because democrats follow the socialist philosophy."
Again... nothing to do with me. I am a free market believer and a confirmed Capitalist.
"I believe you are a fiscal conservative but from your posts around election time, I believe you would not have been too upset with a Kerry administration..."
I don't think you understand my views very well. Because --- as recent history has shown --- the main chance we poor citizens have of seeing lower federal spending, lower deficits, etc., is when POWER IN WASHINGTON IS *DIVIDED*... WHERE both PARTYS' BIG SPENDING WAYS ARE STYMIED BY THE OPPOSITION OF THE OTHER SIDE... I was pulling for ANY RESULT that produced a division of power.
Whether that was a Democrat in the WH and Republican control of Congress... or the other way around matters not a whit to me.
(As Mark Twain once famously said: "When Congress is in session, no man's wallet is safe.")
'Gridlock' can be a VERY GOOD THING! It prevents either bunch from running wild with the Treasury, and from engaging in the more extreme kind of policies that appeal to, and reward, the extremist elements in their own bases.
I regarded BOTH Presidential candidates as poor choices, lame and sub-par. (PS --- I voted Libertarian at the top of the ticket... the Party most aligned with my views, and where Libertarians were not running I split my votes between the other two Parties, based upon the qualities and views of the individuals running... as per usual.)
"I guess we will find out in 2008 when the Hillary takes over."
Unlikely that she will win the Demo primaries... extremely unlikely that she could win a general election.
IMO, 2008 will be WIDE OPEN. I see tens of candidates on both sides. |
