Republicans And the Big Government

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Well then keep trodding down your idealistically clueless path then, buddy boy. I'm sure if anyone gets in your way you'll just whoop them upside the head with your tire chain. :roll:

I am sorry, did you have a point to post in this thread? or are you just trolling to show your ass some more? Do the righties have ANYTHING to contribute to the forum today?


any comments about the big goverment myth you people put on lefties in here that I just slammed in your face with posting this? or just more of you being anti-intellegent?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Maybe you should expect trolls when you start a thinly vieled troll of thread such as this in the first place?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Maybe you should expect trolls when you start a thinly vieled troll of thread such as this in the first place?

So the Repubs spend like hell (including Bush's attitude of no spending bill that he can't sign) and cause record deficits and steeplerot points this WELL KNOWN fact out and it's a troll. STFU!

Dispute this!!!

 

[ciba]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
You think there is a classic definition of a lib/progressive? hehe, sure.

No. I'm referring to "classical liberalism"

I inferred from your response that you didn't know what classical liberalism was and didn't bother to look it up. To help you, try here. Hint: My reference to classical did not mean "typical."

Classical Liberals (very similar to modern-day libertarians) believe in free markets, free trade and limited government.

I suppose I am stuck in the past with the definition, as the terminology has changed in modern times, but I'm convinced classical liberalism was what ElFenix was referring to (especially considering his reference to limited government).

 

[Steeplerot]

well you are not going to get much more limited in government then what the dems propose nowdays....(not that I am endorsing them)

So if that is what you mean I do not see your point? care to expand on that a bit further then your link?

 

[ciba]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
well you are not going to get much more limited in government then what the dems propose nowdays....(not that I am endorsing them)

So if that is what you mean I do not see your point? care to expand on that a bit further then your link?

Sure!

Classical liberals believe in both economic freedom and personal freedom. In essence, they share social policy values with democrats (with regards to restricting personal freedom) and economic values with "fiscal conservatives.

The poster's statement that there are no real liberals anymore (with reference to small government) means that simply all parties are in favor of big government... democrats and republicans alike.

My opinion? Parties are divided on superficial issues which a classical liberal thinks has no business in government discussion altogether. Gay marriage is out because the government reall doesn't need to recognize marriage in the first place.

A "classical liberal" opposes the stem cell research bill because it expands the scope of government.

I hope that explains my position a bit better.

 

[Steeplerot]

Ok I can see your point, I don't really have a comment though, sounds pretty libertarian to me IMO.

Things have blurred a lot though I do agree. But the heart of what I believe in is still social freedoms, with a range of perephrial issues.

Lowering spending drasticlly does seem new in the classic sense for democrats, but there has to be a sane alternative to the mad spending and big government burden the GOP has leveled on america.

us going broke seriously impedes my freedoms at a happy life and my pursuit of a comfortable life for my family.-thus what was once a classical definition conservative issues has become a "liberal" one for what that is worth.

I am not much of a democrat though, registered green party since I was 18 and am still, barley voted for kerry and held my nose voting democrat. we really need some more parties and accountable voting methods.

 

[ciba]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Ok I can see your point, I don't really have a comment though, sounds pretty libertarian to me IMO.

Things have blurred a lot though I do agree. But the heart of what I believe in is still social freedoms, with a range of perephrial issues.

Lowering spending drasticlly does seem new in the classic sense for democrats, but there has to be a sane alternative to the mad spending and big government burden the GOP has leveled on america.

You're right in the sense that Libertarians are often described as classically liberal. The difference is that Libertarian is a party and "classically liberal" is an ideology. Much like democrats are viewed as "liberal" and republicans are viewed as "conservative."

I tend to agree with people in the sense that the government needs to get out of social issues. As I laid out in another thread, the government should foster an environement for success, but should not guarantee it. It should also not be involved in many social issues (gay marriage, or any marriage, for that matter). Most of the benefits derived from marriage are just as easily accomplished by identifying property ownership (TIC/Individual/JOWROS).

As for spending, I only see republicans as the big spenders on the federal level. In my state (Washington). Democrats can't spend the money fast enough. Of ~500 laws passed this year, nearlyl 20% were declared "emergencies" to bypass the citizen's right of referendum. I think republicans are still fiscal conservatives as far as my local politics are concerned.

 

[Zebo]

You guys remeber how they destroyed a real conservative like PAt Buchanan? I remeber... Had commentators on the news after his GOP speeches saying crap like "his speech was better in the original German" with the obvious NAZI implications. Especially with the run up commentary and slant of how Pat was a nazi and baby killer. What a shame. My type of republican BTW...

Nope both parties, and the press, are statists with little regaurd for const. Their whole modus operandi is big government and taking power and rights from the people. Why? gives them more power. You have to be pretty sick to run for office in the first place, only those with total/absolute/insatiable lust for power make it. And they do exactly what thier personality demands of them once in office, increase thier power at publics expense.

This is why i dont sweat politics much.. I know no matter who wins in this day and age I'm getting fusked harder than last time.

 

[Steeplerot]

*exasperated*
So anyone have a clue what to do short of revoloution? to tear the crap down to get us more parties, and stop the corruption and career politicians?

This is the question all parties should be asking IMO....