So respond to post #29. Acknowledge that whether it’s just a two-axis divide, or the others I described, it isn’t clear that “Republican” and “conservative” means you want less government. Or not.
In General Questions, certainly. I’m not sure if it applies in other forums.
I didn’t find anything in that post worth responding to. If you have a cogent thought on the subject and would like to ask me a question, I’ll do my best to answer.
OK. Then I’ll take this opportunity to point out how liberal douches without a fucking clue about anything beyond “I want stuff; rich people have stuff; so rich people should give me their stuff” aren’t the best source for what a conservative of any stripe believes about any issue. Liberal douches also often like to manufacture hypocrisy in their political opponents because they lack the ability to actually argue the merits of any policy position.
And the journey towards the pit begins. Nice strawman you have there. In my post above I gave actual policy examples that showed how Republicans are full of shit when it comes to limited government and you have pretend things no one has ever said ever.
Pot/Kettle. :eek:
Check the masthead again. This forum is called In My Humble Opinion. In my opinion, conservatism is a intellectually bankrupt philosophy based on class warfare, racism and greed. How could that be inappropriate for this forum?
Assuming you’re not just pretending you can’t see my point…
The OP asked essentially whether Republicans actually want smaller government.
You responded by introducing the two axes, fiscal and social, pointing out that social conservatives are willing to commit resources to enforcing their moral code.
You claimed that this absolved conservatives from charges of hypocrisy.
The problem with this reasoning is, *social conservatives invariably don’t make this distinction when running for office. *They claim to be for smaller government while also promising to use government to enforce social mores. This may not be hypocrisy, but it’s certainly a conflict that can’t be waved away by simply noting that the two axes exist.
I pointed out that there are other conflicts among traditionally conservative positions. (E.g., conservatives in the past often favored strong international military intervention, which costs money.)
These conflicts stem mostly from the cold war, when communism united these disparate groups against a common enemy. But American conservatives haven’t really responded to the end of the cold war by defining clearly what they stand for.
This is why the condition that the OP asked about exists.
You can respond by agreeing with me (because it’s true), or by figuring out how to unite all groups claiming the conservative label (*much *harder, but it would get you known as the political genius who saved the Republican party).
FTR, almost three years ago, Sam Stone made the best response I’ve ever heard to what was essentially this same question.
Because the military is big (BIG) business. I suppose one could make the argument that military spending goes back into the US economy but not before some large corporations skim off some huge profits. Plus, the military does help create a safe environment world-wide where business can operate profitably so big, international businesses are going to like that. Just like small businesses like more police in their area.
The Republican call for smaller government always sounds like to me like “less corporate regulation and lower corporate taxes.” That is exactly what I hear when any candidate says “smaller government.” There is a strong case to be made that corporate freedom HAS, over the last two hundred years, made America the great place that is. That doesn’t mean that corporations shouldn’t be regulated, as much as they would like that.
On the other hand, Republicans don’t mind more government spending to regulate my personal life or to enforce their desires over-seas. They seem to think that humans should be constantly monitored for any sign that they may be about to exercise their freedom. So I don’t buy the smaller government claim. Smaller government would be great IMO but I believe that any dollar a Republican politician saves on corporate regulation will be spent on human regulation.
Because it funnels money to the wealthy and hurts people, two things the Republicans love.
The Republicans don’t want a small government; they love government when it’s being used to profit the wealthy, hurt people, tyrannize them and in general used for harm. Random wars, massive prison populations, torture, spying on American citizens, control the sex lives of women, random searches of brown people, beating workers on strike into submission, executing homosexuals; Republicans are perfectly happy with government doing things like that. What they hate is the government being used to help or protect anyone but straight rich white Christian men. They oppose constructive benevolent government; they support tyrannical, destructive government.
Nope.
Yup.
Couldn’t think of an answer to my #19 and #32, hunh?
Look, I don’t have the time to respond to every jumbled mess of a non-argument that people tend to throw out in these types of threads. If you have a specificquestkon for me, I will try to answer.
If it’s truly difficult for you to infer a question from the posts I mentioned, then we’re all better off if you don’t tax yourself trying. 