Conservatives

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yes, because Bush and the Republicans in Congress are really respecting the state of California's ballot initiatives by prosecuting medical marijuana users.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should really attempt to learn something about an issue before you post in reference to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What am I wrong about shithead?

Tell me one thing wrong with what I said. Republicans in Congress are overwhelmingly anti-medical marijuana. They are trampling on states' rights.

[touchfaith]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yes, because Bush and the Republicans in Congress are really respecting the state of California's ballot initiatives by prosecuting medical marijuana users.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should really attempt to learn something about an issue before you post in reference to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What am I wrong about shithead?

Tell me one thing wrong with what I said. Republicans in Congress are overwhelmingly anti-medical marijuana. They are trampling on states' rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

It still needs to play out.

So far, the Feds have not enforced any federal laws against legit medical pot clubs.

They've (here in Cali) gone after some clubs that where growing and distributing illegally, but all the other places are operating without fear.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Conservative: Narrow-minded
Liberal: Open-minded
************************************************** *****
Hmmmmmmmm..........so these defintions are an example of being "open-minded"?
This type of "open-minded" thinking is why liberals keep losing elections.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I repeat: that definition of "liberal" you provided, contains one of the many choices of smears that anti-liberals have to describe their ideological opponents, e.g. "liberals love raising taxes!"

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe the quote referred to liberals preferring a larger and more active government. If the gov't is to be large and active, it follows that taxes must be higher than under an ideal conservative gov't. I see nothing wrong with the previous definition and it seems that your definition is not much different; just longer and more rhetorical.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I see nothing wrong with the previous definition and it seems that your definition is not much different; just longer and more rhetorical.

[/ QUOTE ]
I provided, at Felix's request, no less, a broad list of what makes a "liberal", as the term applies today (when it has almost become a synonym for "lefty").

In that list, the "active gov't" part is but one of the liberal atrributes - while in the W. F. Buckley debate it was the sole characteristic! Something which I specifically pointed out as being a standard conservative smear on liberals' positions. (And this is why I provided the example of the pious Catholic who's a liberal union leader - but you were not paying attention! It meant to show that a definition of conservatism that goes only by the person's take on religion does not take us far.)

I know people who are liberal on issues of individual freedoms but cons in foreign policy. I know people who are conservative in matters of fiscal policy but liberal in sexual issues, including abortion. (By the way, these folks are dumbstruck with Bush's runaway spending!)

We are sometimes too quick to pigeonhole ideas.

[BCPVP]

A couple things to keep in mind:
1) The definitions were meant to show a contrast, so including things like "liberals support the 3 branches of gov't" implies that conservatives don't.
2) The debate could very well have been about what size the gov't should be, in which case, the additional characteristics would be unnecessary and time-wasting.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yes, because Bush and the Republicans in Congress are really respecting the state of California's ballot initiatives by prosecuting medical marijuana users.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should really attempt to learn something about an issue before you post in reference to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What am I wrong about shithead?

Tell me one thing wrong with what I said. Republicans in Congress are overwhelmingly anti-medical marijuana. They are trampling on states' rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

The day after the RAICH ruling, two congressman introduced a bill to congress specifically to direct the DEA to respect states' decisions about medical marijuana and stop all prosecuting.

The bill was introduced by Dana Rohrbacher and Ron Paul.

Both Republicans.

However, I agree with you that by and large, both republicans *and* democrats have no respect for states' rights and have no fear of an overly strong federal govt, except when it is convenient to say so.

natedogg

[shots]

[ QUOTE ]

What am I wrong about shithead?
Tell me one thing wrong with what I said. Republicans in Congress are overwhelmingly anti-medical marijuana. They are trampling on states' rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're wrong about everything. Bush and the congress had nothing to do with the California ballot initiative being overturned, that was a supreme court decision and the conservatives were the only ones that were for the state having the right to make there own decision, as usual.

[DBowling]

[ QUOTE ]

the California ballot initiative being overturned

[/ QUOTE ]

overturned?

[[censored]]

I thought about this more and being a conservative does not mean refraining from passing any restrictions on personnal behavior like abortion, gay marriage or the ones mentioned within the thread. What it means is a belief that laws should reflect the will and beliefs of the people they govern and that they should be decided at the lowest level of government possible. In most cases this is the state level but with issue like education the local level would apply.

Thus on say abortion a true conservative does not oppose roe v. wade simply because it made abortion legal but because the judicial branch thrawted the will of the people who had decided at a state level that abortion was not legal. Hopefully it will someday be overturned so that states like NY or CA can have it legal and states such Kansas and Alabama can restrict it.

judicial activism: conservatives are against judges determining the law on important social issues instead of letting the people themselves decide.

So to go back to the question of drugs, gambling and prostitution I believe that all of these are best decided at the state level and as a conservative I respect laws like medical marijuana even though I may be personally against them because it was decided by the people of CA.

Some on here like to constantly call conservatives hypocritical yet while they love a law like medical marijuana they are quick to hope that other measures also passed by the populace, like definition of marriage acts or restrictions on abortion are struck down by judges who for the most part do not have to answer to the people they serve.