Help a Conservative choose a candidate...

[Kopefire]

[ QUOTE ]

The problem is you are not a conservative but for some odd reason that is the label you placed on this post. I really guffawed at the part where you blame President Bush for establishing the Dept of Homeland Security. Didn't 911 have a little something to do with that necessity?


[/ QUOTE ]

Frankly, I have a hard time seeing how anyone calling themselves a conservative and using that term with it's historical meaning of being for smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and civil liberties can NOT be oppossed to the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security.

Conservatives who unabashadly support the war in Iraq are a mistery to me, but conservatives who are not outraged at the lack of focus on finishing the job in Afghanistan suggest to me that national defense is not nearly as important to them as blind republican loyalty.

Does the creation of DHS uphold a strict respect for the 10th ammendment, long a bastion point of conservative thought? No. It does not. Does the passage of the patriot act stem from fundamental principles that government power should be used sparingly and judiciously? No, it does not.

The policies advocated by this administration are more in line with FDR or Wilson than with Goldwater or Reagan. This is not a conservative president, except in rhetoric.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't have a clue .. maybe libertarian.

[/ QUOTE ]Bingo.

[Nepa]

Great post! The thing that gets me is that most of the real conservatives don't have the balls to response to a post like this. You know who you are, just keep starting new threads posting stories.

[Kopefire]

Assuming that this is in response to me, AC Player, I'll respond a bit.

Economically, I believe in pre-Keynesian economics. As did Ronald Reagan. I believe in smaller, leaner, less obtrusive Government, as did Reagan. I believe that government spending must be cut along with tax cuts in order to have effective, long term economic growth . . . a theme that was a cornerstone of Reagan's 1st innaugral address.

I believe there is next to no role in the federal government for social programs. However, if we are to have a welfare program, then "Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence"

I bevieve that most criminal and social laws are properly left to the state.

I believe in giving significant credence to the 10th ammendment.

I believe that the having 32 different federal beaurocracies with armed agents empowered to arrest citizens is a real and rpesent threat to ever American's civil liberties.

I am decidedly conservative. The problem with most republicans is that they've forgotten what it means to be a fiscal conservative . . . and have focused almost exclussively on social conservancy as the standard by which one gains admission to the Republican party.

Sadly, the result is a party that has all the vices of the democrats, with none of the virtues.

We have gone from a Reagan, who vetoed a record number of spending bills trying to teach the democrat controlled congress that "We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much," to a Bush who has signed for a record number of discretionary spending dollars asked for by his own party!without ever vetoing one of them.

Does anyone believe that Reagan would be for the patriot act or the the department of homeland security? I don't. Indeed, I think his own words decidedly answer that question: " You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream -- the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order -- or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path."

[bisonbison]

I really don't have a clue .. maybe libertarian.-->Bingo.

ahaha, I saw the same thing.

[Kopefire]

Do the libertarians even have a fiscal stance beyond we should legalize and tax pot?

Maybe it's just the libertarians in my area .. but I'm not sure I'm all that interested in a party who's average member is too stoned to remember to go to the polls.

[MMMMMM]

Why don't you check out www.lp.org before jumping to such ridiculous conclusions--although I do think some publicly stress the legalization issue too much at the expense of other issues.

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you check out www.lp.org before jumping to such ridiculous conclusions--although I do think some publicly stress the legalization issue too much at the expense of other issues.

[/ QUOTE ]


I took their test. The results are below.
You preferred the Democratic stance for 1 issue. Democratic Platform

You preferred the Green stance for 1 issue. Green Platform

You preferred the Libertarian stance for 5 issues. Libertarian Platform.

You preferred the Republican stance for 0 issues. Republican Platform.

I would vote Libertarian but I do live in a swing state so I don't believe I will.

[Kopefire]

It's not a particularly ridiculous conclussion ... I've known a few libertarians in my lifetime. Heck I even happened to be close enough to a rally once or twice while on campus in the late '70s and early '80s. Maybe they've changed . . but then they were a bunch of burn-outs trying to legalize pot.

[Cyrus]

I'll just sit back and enjoy the frantic efforts by the Bush faithful around here who will try to make the sun rise out of the west, for ya!

Goes without saying, of course, that you are right: Bush is the last of the big time spenders, an interventionist of the first order, and wants an iron-strong central government in tandem with total state intrusion into private lives. The rest is chaff. (But it will be fun!)