IntenseDebate - Talismen

15 years ago @ Big Government - Friday Free For All: M... · 1 reply · +3 points

Not this conservative.

Because when I allow government to dictate social "order" to me, I hand over to them the power to change that social "order" with every vote in congress, every vote in the well of the senate, and every stroke of the pen in the oval office.

I.E. - if you allow government to set social "order", you are by default giving them the power to come after YOUR favorite social "order". In other words, what goes around comes around, and with every mid-term and presidential election, that social "order" can change with a whiff of the wind.

If YOU want the government to have that much power...Have at it.
But you'll not be doing it with my "ok". Ever.

15 years ago @ Big Government - Friday Free For All: M... · 1 reply · +4 points

Yep, when I post a comment like that, I usually get the "huckabee" social cons coming after me. I'm just waiting for the blow-back! :-D

15 years ago @ Big Government - Friday Free For All: M... · 0 replies · +4 points

Thanks NanaAyya, and I agree with your sentiments as well.

15 years ago @ Big Government - Friday Free For All: M... · 9 replies · +12 points

Full disclosure (before I comment): I am a conservative/libertarian. I am not a "social conservative".

Now then...It is NOT a function of federal government (or any government for that matter) to dictate social policy beyond that which ensures the safety of any society. Churches, justices of the peace, ship's captains, and all others who are allowed to perform legal marriages should be allowed (and not forced) to decide whom they will marry and whom they will not.

Government's role should be to provide a legal binding "agreement" between the two people getting married. Call it a "civil union agreement", call it a "legal kin-ship" agreement. Whatever.

If folks are going to insist that government "approve" what constitutes a "marriage", then folks are, by default, insisting that a "marriage" isn't a "marriage" until government says so. So apparently, paying thousands of dollars for a church ceremony means diddly, until a government says "yes, we approve". Is that it?

Right...Tell me another.

17 years ago @ Big Hollywood - Resuscitating the GOP ... · 0 replies · +1 points

Yep....Freedom.

And I think many in the GOP leadership have taken to believing (for the past decade or so) that being conservative means having the latest greatest answer to "current issues". It doesn't, because in the end, conservatism itself (and the freedom that comes with it) can be applied to just about any "current issue" out there.

It's not about catchy phrases and issue stances...it's about articulating conservatism and doing it well.

17 years ago @ Big Hollywood - Resuscitating the GOP ... · 1 reply · +2 points

In the end,....Individualism seems to have flown out the window within the GOP. They seem not to respect the fact that PEOPLE are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights....Not "political parties" are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights".

My advice to the party as a whole? Decide whether you still believe in the core conservative ideals (lower taxes, less government, more individual freedom).
If you do, make those things the only litmus test that matters, because in the end, those things that most so-called "moderates" want to be flexible on and the things that most so-called "social conservatives" believe are more important would ALL fall under the "individual freedom" category. In my book, that's how it should be.

17 years ago @ Big Hollywood - Resuscitating the GOP ... · 0 replies · +2 points

*Being told that I must "give a little" when it comes to core conservative ideals. No, I don't have to "give a little"! I don't find that embracing the political opposition's ideals or stances does anything to further the conservative movement or cause. It only makes things politically "murky" and indistinguishable. That creates confusion, and we have enough of that already. Pardon me for having a backbone and sticking to those core ideals. I don't plan on waivering on those things, ever, and if it means that I re-register as "Libertarian" or "Independent", then so be it. My advice to these folks - educate yourself on what conservatism TRULY is, and go from there. Start fresh, because you're thinking as been muddied by a liberal media hell-bent on brainwashing you.

17 years ago @ Big Hollywood - Resuscitating the GOP ... · 0 replies · +2 points

*Being told that I'm a "jew lover", and don't love my own country, because I believe we must maintain our alliance with Israel. The people who say things like this need a swift kick in the ass, as far as I'm concerned. Take a look at the middle east, and name for me all the countries we can call "ally". And don't give me the "U.S.S. Liberty"/"Powerful Jew Lobby" BS. There are other countries besides Israel who've done as much, or more, and I find it funny we never hear you people standing up and crying about that when it happens. It's always all about Israel and the Jews and how horrible they are. Geez people, get a life...and put down the copy of "Mein Kampf".

17 years ago @ Big Hollywood - Resuscitating the GOP ... · 0 replies · +2 points

Most of all - I'm sick of of a few key things that I must now detail:

*Being told that being conservative means you must also behave a certain way, when it comes to religion. The last time I checked, there was this thing called "freedom OF religion" in this country, and it is MY choice as to whether I wear a cross around my neck or not. It is MY choice as to whether I speak 24/7 about my religious beliefs, or not. It is MY choice as to how I use my religious beliefs to gauge potential political candidates...or not. Being politically conservative means alot of things, but I'm tired of being told that being politically conservative comes with a mandatory list of religious methodology that one must follow, if they are to be accepted as "conservative" or "Christian enough" to even be considered "conservative". To suggest that a person must believe a certain way when it comes to religion, all because they are politically conservative...Isn't smart. This is where that "individual freedom" comes in. Respect it, or it will eventually become an albatross around your neck.

17 years ago @ Big Hollywood - Resuscitating the GOP ... · 0 replies · +1 points

The so-called "moderates" - They too can be an asset to the party, because (at least every now and then) they find something worthy about conservatism that they like, and they vote for the GOP candidate. But, they lack gumption...backbone...and determination to stick to a solid set of political beliefs. These folks tend to tell the rest of us that we're too "stiff" - we're too "rigid" - and that there never seems to be room for a "middle-ground". They probably have a point, but, here's the thing....EITHER YOU'RE PRO CORE CONSERVATIVE IDEALS, OR YOU'RE NOT. It's that simple. One does not advance conservatism, or the GOP, by embracing the ideals and stances of your political opposition, all in the name of getting more members into the party. Lower taxes, less government, more individual freedom...Those have been core political ideals within the party, and to suggest that it's ok to "waffle" on those things and still be a conservative Republican...is simply wrong. Make up your minds. Ante up, or cash out.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Description

Connect with Talismen

People I'm following

Talismen