Republicans Want "to kill me and my kids." Paul Begala

Yes and no. Conservatives have zeal and are much more likely to derive their political ideals from their religious/moral convictions.

There is some danger though that US evangelicals are becoming too much of a political rather than spiritual force. We are no more immune to the corruption that liberal Christianity has seen than they were. We cannot fall into the trap of thinking human institutions are the vehicles to achieve Christian goals.

I warned my SS class yesterday that our prayers are much more powerful (and needed) than our votes.

Given a choice... I would reassert genuine libertarian ideals in the US. ie. Defense for defense only, no income tax, significantly reduced government regulation, no social welfare, no socialistic health care, no public schools, etc.

America did fantastic things in a very short period of time when it recognized and promoted the sovereignty of the individual before his creator.

This would probably mean that the world would have to find another leader/scapegoat (depending on your perspective).

The most major thing I disagree with the Libertarian Party on is abortion.

 

Excellent post Scott. I completely agree with you.

 

That's why I am conservative/libertarian. The less money and power we give government (even in the name of doing good) the less power there is to be had and the less the lies of politicians matter.

The size and scope of our current federal government dictates that we will have the kind of political lust that leads men to do or say anything. It can be no different with unregenerate human beings... and often not much different with the saved.

 

That makes sense. I would be persuaded to be a Libertarian as long as everyone else was given their rights too. And as long as the church was caring for the poor so the government would not have to.

You mention the size and scope of your government...it is interesting that it is so large and growing when it is conservative. I thought they were for smaller and less intrusive government eh?

 

Paul Begala really hasn't been in the news since the glory days when he was all over cable news networks ad nauseum defending Bill Clinton's adultery and perjury. He just needs to grab a headline now and then to elevate his self esteem.

 

<personal attack deleted>

[ July 18, 2005, 08:47 PM: Message edited by: LadyEagle ]

 

Like Ken, I have been disappointed with Bush's social spending policies.

His opportunity society makes some sense... use these government institutions/programs while weaning people off of them and then eliminate the program but it hasn't really been an emphasis. His administration has been dominated by war and terrorism.

If no one has the courage to actually do something like this, America will eventually have to go "cold turkey". Our beneficiaries and benefits will one day in the not so distant future outstrip our contributors and their ability to contribute.

We Christians really should go back to our 1st century roots and depend on each other- make needs known and supply them... having all things in common. God's guarantees when people faithfully do as He commands are alot more dependable than government programs.

 

&lt;personal attack deleted&gt; </font>[/QUOTE]

[ July 18, 2005, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: LadyEagle ]

 

What moderates?

 

Right on Scott. I bet the church could do a better job of it than the government. Much of the church doesn't want to though. They are concerned with calling people who stand up for their rights, cowards...and their income tax return.

 

OK, I have to get off track to say that no, I was not saying that liberalism is a mental disorder, I just believe it is a flawed system that is easy to see through.

Now, are there problems on both sides of the political landscape? You bet there are! But, it seems as if the left tends to believe that they are capable of making mistakes and that the Republicans are evil people trying to do equally evil things.

We would all be better off if the political attacks were put behind us. We could then focus on the issues (imagine that) and have an honest debate about the merits of each view. Maybe then we could actually find common ground to work on. But, in the politically charged environment in which we live, this is nearly impossible. Instead, we choose to sit back and launch attacks against the other side and hope some of them find their mark.

 

JamesBell...good points. I don't recall you saying that liberalism is a mental disorder though but someone else did.

Yes there are problems on both sides. Many conservatives don't want to admit that though. I am open to trying to learn what conservatives really believe...but I don't feel they are open themselves to what liberals really believe. Conservatives paint liberals with a very broad brush and assume they are all the same.

 

King James, I would enjoy the conversation, if it remained civil. But, I doubt that could happen in an environment such as this. As for being open to what liberals believe, I would like to be able to learn the actual issues. It seems as if the left has become the pro-abortion, anti-conservative movement, and little else. Here in the "heart land" it seems as if the only agenda the left has is to oppose the right. That makes no sense to me, and I don't know why people will go along with it.

As for the people on the left that have ideas and defend them... I respect them. I have always said that I respect Democrats much more than I do those people with the (I) behind their name, and even that much more than those that have no interest. Everyone should examine the issues and make their own decisions. IF we happen to disagree, that is fine, just have the courage to stand for the issues you believe in.

 

Sorry for jumping into the middle of your conversation but I think you have somewhat of a misperception here.

My families on both sides come from NC. They have been Democrats since the founding of the party. I didn't leave them... they left me. It is hard to break tradition but looking at the basic things that divide the parties and ideologies I simply couldn't support Democrats due to their direct association with liberalism.

Liberals began to take over the Democratic party in the early part of the 20th century and were pretty much in control by the time conservatives began their exodus in the 70's and 80's.

Basically, Democrats think that government power should be used to "do good"- to accomplish some ambiguous concept of equity.

Conservatives believe that the "good" is best served when individual rights are protected and people are expected to assume the responsibilities that go along with those rights.

Liberals do not directly associate rights with responsibilities... nor do they think of "rights" as something endowed by the creator but rather something created and dispensed by government.

Thus Democrats favor wealth redistribution and social engineering based on what they believe is the desired outcome. They also conclude that homosexuals have a "right" to marry, employment, housing, etc.

Marriage is sticky but a genuine conservative/libertarian would say that the property owner has the right to hire/sell to anyone he wants based on his personal values.

The source of rights difference is also illustrated somewhat by abortion. A liberal says that a woman can do what she wants sexually... then avoid responsibility by having a "right to an abortion." A conservative says that yes a person has a right to make moral choices but that does not entitle them to a right to take another person's life... they must take responsibility for their choices.

Conservatives are largely value driven and believe in absolute standards/rules/laws. Liberals are much more relativistic. The argument over Clinton illustrates this well. Conservatives say "He committed a felony!" while liberals say "He didn't lie about anything important!"

Liberals promote things like outcome based education while conservatives promote absolute standards/expectations for student performance... though I disagree with Bush's pragmatic use of "big government" to accomplish a "conservative" goal.

Most people are blend of political opinions rather than being purely one thing or another. I also gave you primarily the two dimensional model of American politics. The three dimensional model is better as it incorporates a wider combination of views. The two dimensional view spreads certain libertarian ideals across the spectrum suggesting that a libertarian is a moderate- which couldn't be further from the truth.

Illustration- libertarians favor a repeal of drug laws... and the income tax.