Ron Paul vs. Ronald Reagan

it's enlightening to see some of you so called 'conservatives' resort back to establishment ideology. also on the jacktivist bandwagon, are ya?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
it's enlightening to see some of you so called 'conservatives' resort back to establishment ideology. also on the jacktivist bandwagon, are ya?
Click to expand...
Well it's what conservatism is all about. Initially it was a response to European Consitutionalism and Republicanism (which incidentally are the foundations of classical Liberalism), and an attempt to justify the return of absolute monarchies.
 
Dixie should remember that the only reason why Paul abandoned Reagan was because of spending/deficits, and what he perceived as hiden taxes to make up for revenue gaps. Paul vigorously supported Reagan in 1976 (you know, before most people did) and 1980.
 
Elias Koteas said:
Dixie should remember that the only reason why Paul abandoned Reagan was because of spending/deficits, and what he perceived as hiden taxes to make up for revenue gaps. Paul vigorously supported Reagan in 1976 (you know, before most people did) and 1980.
Click to expand...
SHHHH.... you're 'rewriting' history to make it actually history.
 
Superfreak said:
I do not disagree that they are both about personal responsibility (for social that is not always the case), but in NO way is it any type of 'all or none' situation. THAT is why the far right is labeled 'nuts'.... because they believe it is all or none.

If I say I am going to earn enough money to pay all of my bills and save some money for a rainy day.... I can do that whether I believe in gay marriage or not. I can do that whether I believe abortions are murder or not. I can do that whether I share your definition of 'family values' or not. IN NO WAY are they tied together in the sense that you cannot do one without the other.

Libertarianism has not failed. To say it has failed would imply that it has been tried. It has not. Instead we end up with the constant bullshit from the two fiscally irresponsible parties who continually point to the wedge social issues to divide this country and to distract her citizens from the FACT that BOTH parties have been fiscally irresponsible and complete failures. BOTH PARTIES. THOSE are the failures.
Click to expand...

Again, here's the principles of conservatism from conservative.org. I've bolded the issues that are strictly social conservatism, but as you can clearly see the remaining are inexplicably tied together with social conservatism:

* Limited government and balanced budgets
* Capitalism and free markets
* Classroom prayer
* Prohibition of abortion and respect for human life
* Abstinence education
* Traditional marriage, not same-sex marriage
* Respect for differences between men and women, boys and girls
* Laws against pornography
* The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms
* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity)
* The death penalty
* Parental control of education
* Private medical care and retirement plans
* Canceling failed social support programs
* No world government
* Enforcement of current laws regarding immigration
* Respect for our military ... past and present
* Rejection of junk science such as evolution and global warming
* Low taxes, especially for families
* Confederationism (less power for the federal government and more for local and state governments)
* A strong national defense
​
For example the first issue "Limited government and balanced budgets" has a social component because limited government is a founding principle, and the Bible teaches to live within ones means (balanced budget).
 
cawacko said:
Is the argument that libertarians wouldn't support welfare reform or that libertarians wouldn't support welfare and social conservatives do?
Click to expand...
No the argument is that welfare reform has a socially conservative component as well as a fiscally conservative one; they are tied together.
 
Martin Luther King Jr. said:
I'll use the example of the socially conservative policy of abstinence education. Libertarians should be against this, yet the education teaches personal responsibility.
Click to expand...

not even close. this takes the right of parents to teach their kids about sex education and places it in the hands of a gov entity. something that should CLEARLY be non conservative.
 
Martin Luther King Jr. said:
No the argument is that welfare reform has a socially conservative component as well as a fiscally conservative one; they are tied together.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be obtuse or difficult and it is possible that I am completely overlooking something but I'm not getting how a libertarian couldn't just as easily push for welfare reform as a social conservative could.
 
Superfreak said:
ROFLMAO..... I used a couple of examples of social conservative issues ditzie. Please enlighten us as to which social conservative issues have ANYTHING to do with being fiscally conservative.
Click to expand...

They all do, in a philosophical sense, that was what I just explained to you.

Then do tell us how I was being close minded and/or bigoted with my comments.
Click to expand...

Oh let me count the ways dear sir! First of all, you attempt to 'identify' social conservatism by equating it with two singular issues. They happen to be hotly contested issues which you hold a particular viewpoint opposite of the social conservatives. You have no reason to reject the position taken by social conservatives, other than you just don't like what they seem to stand for. In your warped and wrongheaded mind, it's better for us to disavow religious customs and traditions, and do away with any kind of moral restraints on society, so that people can be free to do whatever the hell makes them feel good. Consequences be damned, it doesn't ever occur to you, what kind of damage this will do to society as a whole, how much it will erode and destroy our moral foundations. You just don't like religious people having a political voice, so you are committed to denigrating them at every opportunity, including an "intellectual" discussion of social conservatism.

That is a fine and well ditzie... but in no way does the above alter FISCAL conservative ideas. Whether you adhere to either extreme of moralistic beliefs.... puritanical or Mott's love affair with his sheep.... neither effects the ability of one to be fiscally conservative.
Click to expand...

I never said it "altered" anything. I submit that both fiscal conservatism and social conservatism are important in comprising a well-founded ideology. Without either of the two, the ideology is missing something vital and important, whether you realize that or not. Your opinion is not the end-all-be-all to the truth.

"everything has absolutely everything to do with everything" .... Well Mott, you are off the hook, Ditzie just doubled down on your normal level of stupidity.
Click to expand...

Simple philosophy... backed up by great minds like Newton... for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. Everything has to do with everything... that's LIFE!

Tell us ditzie.... do you need to check the weather in AZ in order to mow a lawn in MS?
Click to expand...

Nope... beside the point... I don't even know what you're yammering about now.
 
Dixie said:
You have no reason to reject the position taken by social conservatives, other than you just don't like what they seem to stand for. In your warped and wrongheaded mind, it's better for us to disavow religious customs and traditions, and do away with any kind of moral restraints on society, so that people can be free to do whatever the hell makes them feel good. Consequences be damned,
Click to expand...

is that really you're opinion of Libertarians and Libertarianism?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top