What's new
By:
Filters

A Place for Conservatives

I used to think most everybody was for as small of government as practical before these young liberals came along. They seem to think government can't expand into our lives big enough.

It goes without saying that these young liberals need problems for the government to solve. Need something to be outraged about. Now that most major problems have been ironed out, slavery, womens rights and what have you, they need to create new ones no matter how petty to satisfy their desire for permanent outrage.

I see life as pretty damn good and thankful for how well off we all are. We have life pretty easy in comparison to past generations and other places in the world. So I dont need an overburdening big brother like they do.
 
idestroyedthetoilet said:
I used to think most everybody was for as small of government as practical before these young liberals came along. They seem to think government can't expand into our lives big enough.

It goes without saying that these young liberals need problems for the government to solve. Need something to be outraged about. Now that most major problems have been ironed out, slavery, womens rights and what have you, they need to create new ones no matter how petty to satisfy their desire for permanent outrage.

I see life as pretty damn good and thankful for how well off we all are. We have life pretty easy in comparison to past generations and other places in the world. So I dont need an overburdening big brother like they do.
Click to expand...
Companies like Amazon not paying their fair share in taxes is a major problem that the government has yet to solve.
 
AlaskanAssassin said:
At some point over the last several years I realized I'm not really a Conservative as much as I am a Libertarian. I feel that the government, especially the Federal government, should have a much smaller impact on our day to day lives.

I never agreed with traditional conservative viewpoints on topics like same-sex marriage. Why should the government have this level of control over its citizens? How can a government tell consenting adults that they can't form a legally recognized union? Of course, this idea extends way beyond just the laws of marriage.

I work as a CPA auditing exclusively State, Local, and Tribal governments. Being able to view, at an individual transaction level, how our federal and state tax dollars are spent is genuinely frightening. Whatever amount of waste you image there might be.........trust me, there is more.

While I would prefer a much smaller federal government, clearly there are others that would like the government to grow substantially (Bernie, Ocasio-Cortez, etc.).

Conservative or Liberal, I'm curious as to what size government you would prefer, and why.
Click to expand...

Mainstream conservatives would have done well to stick with their small government dogma on the marriage issue by pushing government out of the marriage equation altogether. Coval unions for all, a legal contract between consenting adults. Instead they exposed their moral superiority complex.
 
I am a small government fiscal conservative/ capitalist. As the Republican party has gone off the deep end and headed into the deep recesses of fear mongering, racism, and hatred, I cannot associate with them in any way shape and form. This despite a strong bias for most of their policies and a history of voting Republican.

I'm appalled by their attempts to disenfranchise and exclude voters. I think conservatism can win the argument with a fair fight.

The Democratic party is awful but they are 1% of the Republican problems as they are being lead by an amoral buffoon.

Trump and his minions are obviously going down in flames and this was 100% foreseeable. The regrettable truth is that he has compromised the right and now the power is headed sharply to the left.

I know many from the right who said "yeah, Trump is a complete buffoon, but he will put policies in place that help me/ my company economically" And we all got our huge tax breaks and our pockets are full of money, so yay! But these same people have a conscience and the scales are now completely tipped.

So, ironically, by putting forth one of the worst candidates in history (HRC), the Democrats are going to gain power. If I did not know Dem Party to be complete political idiots I'd be looking for some mastermind behind the scenes. but nah.
 
silesian said:
Will you care when our kids and grandkids are paying off our 20 trillion dollar credit card we are handing them?
Click to expand...
I don't think the future exists for him based on his posts.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
idestroyedthetoilet said:
Do you always talk in platitudes?
Click to expand...

Let me give it a try.

Wait a minute......

Okay, here goes......

Mustering all my thoughts.......







You are a clueless tool


I hope that was better and meets with your approval.


Now, what is your answer to my question.
 
silesian said:
Let me give it a try.

Wait a minute......

Okay, here goes......

Mustering all my thoughts.......







You are a clueless tool


I hope that was better and meets with your approval.


Now, what is your answer to my question.
Click to expand...

I didnt know Amazon owes the US Treasury 20 trillion dollars. Must be more strange young liberal logic.
 
Rubashov said:
Well naturally the Murduch press are emblematic of this phenomenon, Fox News has brought the lunatic fringe into the mainstream and started to normalise a political and cultural discourse based in fantasy, prejudice and outright lies, the sort of propaganda machine the Goebbels would have dreamed of.
Click to expand...
Wow this thread was godwinned really fast.
 
AlaskanAssassin said:
At some point over the last several years I realized I'm not really a Conservative as much as I am a Libertarian. I feel that the government, especially the Federal government, should have a much smaller impact on our day to day lives.

I never agreed with traditional conservative viewpoints on topics like same-sex marriage. Why should the government have this level of control over its citizens? How can a government tell consenting adults that they can't form a legally recognized union? Of course, this idea extends way beyond just the laws of marriage.

I work as a CPA auditing exclusively State, Local, and Tribal governments. Being able to view, at an individual transaction level, how our federal and state tax dollars are spent is genuinely frightening. Whatever amount of waste you image there might be.........trust me, there is more.

While I would prefer a much smaller federal government, clearly there are others that would like the government to grow substantially (Bernie, Ocasio-Cortez, etc.).

Conservative or Liberal, I'm curious as to what size government you would prefer, and why.
Click to expand...
There is no right answer to this question. There is no magic "size" of government. Government needs to establish a means of Justice based on rule of law, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the generally welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for the people. What those terms mean is where the debates ensues.

Imo government needs to make people's lives easier and more secure, while having the most minimal impact in how they choose to live their lives that is possible. I think certain things should be viewed as rights, such as availability of affordable housing, electricity, clean water, waste disposal, and medical care. These should be viewed as basic "utilities" and should be provided or subsidized in one form or another through the government, or in other words, by each of us for each of our benefit. Then the government should just stay out of people's business. They have no right to be in people's bedrooms, deciding who can marry, or meddling in any other personal liberties.

Obviously this is very broad, but imo this is the amount the government should be involved in providing for the citizenry, and it needs to be big enough to do this effectively and efficiently and no bigger. So how big is that? Big enough, I guess.
 
LogGrad98 said:
There is no right answer to this question. There is no magic "size" of government. Government needs to establish a means of Justice based on rule of law, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the generally welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for the people. What those terms mean is where the debates ensues.

Imo government needs to make people's lives easier and more secure, while having the most minimal impact in how they choose to live their lives that is possible. I think certain things should be viewed as rights, such as availability of affordable housing, electricity, clean water, waste disposal, and medical care. These should be viewed as basic "utilities" and should be provided or subsidized in one form or another through the government, or in other words, by each of us for each of our benefit. Then the government should just stay out of people's business. They have no right to be in people's bedrooms, deciding who can marry, or meddling in any other personal liberties.

Obviously this is very broad, but imo this is the amount the government should be involved in providing for the citizenry, and it needs to be big enough to do this effectively and efficiently and no bigger. So how big is that? Big enough, I guess.
Click to expand...
Great post

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
idestroyedthetoilet said:
Now that most major problems have been ironed out, slavery, womens rights and what have you
Click to expand...
LMAO

The lasting effects of those issues are still being felt in magnitudes today. Those problems wouldn’t have affected you back then, and they sure as hell don’t affect you now. Not surprising you don’t have an ounce of empathy to go around. Or that some white dude in Utah considers everything to be great because we aren’t enslaving other humans. And women can now vote, radical.


Yeesh, what an awful post.
 
Bawse Dawg said:
LMAO

The lasting effects of those issues are still being felt in magnitudes today. Those problems wouldn’t have affected you back then, and they sure as hell don’t affect you now. Not surprising you don’t have an ounce of empathy to go around. Or that some white dude in Utah considers everything to be great because we aren’t enslaving other humans. And women can now vote, radical.


Yeesh, what an awful post.
Click to expand...

Well, they've been resolved as far as that privileged white male suburbanite is concerned! He knows what's up. And if you dare disagree, then you're an idiot liberal child who's not even worth talking to. :cool:
 
Bawse Dawg said:
LMAO

The lasting effects of those issues are still being felt in magnitudes today. Those problems wouldn’t have affected you back then, and they sure as hell don’t affect you now. Not surprising you don’t have an ounce of empathy to go around. Or that some white dude in Utah considers everything to be great because we aren’t enslaving other humans. And women can now vote, radical.


Yeesh, what an awful post.
Click to expand...

I forgot to include that these young liberal have a tendency to be inferring dip ****.
 
idestroyedthetoilet said:
Mainstream conservatives would have done well to stick with their small government dogma on the marriage issue by pushing government out of the marriage equation altogether. Coval unions for all, a legal contract between consenting adults. Instead they exposed their moral superiority complex.
Click to expand...

I’m in complete agreement.
 
They say misery loves company so I guess that explains why young liberals have contempt for anyone who doesn't wear a victim complex on their sleeve.

I prefer strong willed women like this:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top