Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
What Kind Of People Are Teaching Our Children
Topic Started: Jan 31 2005, 11:11 PM (2,972 Views)
Jim Miller
Member Avatar
Member
:coffee:
Jim

Pennsylvania in the Summer
Florida in the Winter
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
DanHouck
Feb 15 2005, 10:41 PM
Tom, if you think the Republicans are the party of the rich, you might find this site very interesting:

http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/DonorD....asp?cycle=2002

Basically what it shows is that the Dems got far more "fat cat" money than the Reps, the Reps got much of their money from small business people like me.

Dan

That is true. Just too bad it is being hijacked by liberal social conservatives. When will traditional conservatives take the party back. Were they too I'd consider stopping voting Libertarian and vote Republican again like some others are saying.

Off topic? Tough.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DanHouck
Member Avatar
Land of Enchantment NM
Quote:
 
That is true. Just too bad it is being hijacked by liberal social conservatives.


What is a "liberal" social conservative? What are social conservatives pushing besides a return to social policies that were the norm for centuries before the last few years, such as marriage being between a man or women, or infanticide being illegal? Inquiring minds want to know. :)

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
The liberal aspect is advocating big centralized ("federalized") government on which to depend to enforce their personal values and intrude on the rights of others. It is also advocating tax-funded "compassionate" programs. It is supporting a president running the country into the ground becaus of fiscal irresponsibility, refusing to see the presidents own flip flops on most issues, refusing to see the president as anything less than perfect.

It is also seen in advocacy for democratic majority rule over the rebulican form of government we have.

Those policies have never been the norms. The laws and court rulings we see today comport fairly well with the history of law and opinion on those issues.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DanHouck
Member Avatar
Land of Enchantment NM
I don't really disagree with a lot of what you write but how could you contend that society viewing marriage as between a man and woman not the historic norm?

The President is having a lot of help from both sides of the aisle in fiscal irresponsibility, as you and I have both agreed on previously. I would have greatly preferred the White House to be won by a centrist Democrat like Joe Lieberman as I think the dynamic of divided control is likely to lead to more fiscal restraint. At least it worked that way when Clinton was in office.

I believe the President is suggesting tax-funded private sector "compassionate" activities as an alternative to the government run welfare programs advocated by others. Would you abolish both?

By advocacy for democratic majority rule, are you referring to those who want to eliminate the electoral college? Trampling of state's rights by large central government? You'll get no disagreement from me here.

Just for the record, I supported the President because the alternative offered to me was totally unpalatable. Had I been offered a centrist alternative, I would have switched votes and I believe I would have been joined in this by a substantial number of Republicans.

Dan



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Same-sex marriage has been accepted or ignored most of history.

Yes, we agree on fiscal irresponsibility coming from both sides.

Not necessarily abolish both--the old hand up but not hand out argument. Those who really need help can get it, preferrably from the local community, including charitable religious groups. Those who refuse to work can starve.

That is part of what I mean by democratic majority rule. Rest Madison's quote posted elsewhwere states it well. As Ayn Rand said, the smallest minorty is the individual, a republic protects that against democratic mob rule.

I understand your support for Bush over Kerry. I argued against it the lesser of two weavils argument, but have come to understand and even appreciate it. In Texas I have greater latitude to vote Libertarian.

Now add to the liberal soc con hijackers the ex-Traskiite neocons and their hubris-filled dreams of empire--economic first, at least, but with miltary to back it up as needed. We are not the world's police. Defending ourselves is enough.

Soc-con plus neo-con yeilds a left-leaning Republican mainstream. Bring Back Goldwater. Heck, bring back Gingritch--I hear he's considering a comeback.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply