Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mana who wrote (685139)	6/8/2005 5:06:47 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

Interesting, Mana.... You do see, don't you, that there is more then a little contradiction between some of those varied definitions for what 'conservative' means? For example: saying that one is for a smaller, less intrusive government flies in the face of calling upon a BIGGER, more POWERFUL government to regulate what people can, and what they are not allowed to do with their personal lives. You gave the example of the Constitution Party as a group with who's views you identify.... Yet note this quote from their platform statement about 'pornography' that illustrates my point: "We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity", ie... they are calling upon a 'Big Daddy' Government to regulate by means of criminal sanctions what others can do or say. (As the famous SC opinion said: 'I know it when I see it'... yet 'offensive speech' is indisputably a matter of definition. Reasonable people can and do disagree about what is 'offensive' and what isn't.) As a Libertarian I would tell you that when you REQUIRE a strong central government to enforce your mores upon the public ...you wind up with bigger more intrusive government.... and bigger governments do not come cheaply so, to a certain extent, that puts #2 & #1 in conflict. As far as your comment "That is the socialist's definition of a religious conservative." to one of my questions [Is a 'RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVE', someone who is willing to enable a bigger, more Authoritarian government so it can be called upon to enforce their religious dogma on other Americans, restricting individual freedoms in the name of particular religious precepts?]... all I can say is that you statement is TOTALLY NON-SENSICAL. 'Socialism' is an ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHY. That isn't even relevant to the adoption of Authoritarian means by the State to enforce social mores. That's 'apples and oranges' stuff. (By the way: I'm a CONFIRMED Capitalist and Free Marketer... NOT a 'Socialist'.... And, to answer my own questions, I'm a #1, #3, #5 'Conservative', and neutral on #4. What I am not is a #2 'Religious conservative'.) That is, I'm a strong FISCAL CONSERVATIVE (low tax, balanced budgets, fiscal prudence, small government), LIBERTARIAN, ANTI-INTERVENTIONIST... and neutral as to whether ideas are 'new' or 'old'. (I'm a pragmatist so, what works... works. :) If you think those views align me with the 'Democratic Party' then you must be delusional... they are as pro-big government as their Republican counter-parts are. It's just that they each want a Big Government for different reasons....