Is it fair for moderators to be promoting politics here?

[IntLibber]

I banned politics on my site because it resulted in people taking things personally and being overall abrasive. I lurk here occasionally but don't post anymore because of the political stuff.

Civil debate requires contention and disagreement to generate discourse. There are unfortunately a growing number of inarticulate, emotionally fragile carebears on the left in the world who think the solution to their own lack of training or talent in public discussion is to ban the first amendment. If you refuse to tolerate open and unmoderated discussion then you lack the courage of your convictions and the ability to defend them. I *DON'T CARE* if you are that way. This is America, not the USSR. You don't have a right to not be offended.

[Skipjack]

There are unfortunately a growing number of inarticulate, emotionally fragile carebears on the left in the world who think the solution to their own lack of training or talent in public discussion is to ban the first amendment.

I have seen them on both sides. I for my part enjoy a good open discussion with both lefties and righties (I dont fit into any camp).
How peaceful would the world be if everyone had the same opinion... and how boring...

[JohnSmith]

Ah, politics. I really hate politics, you know? And the labels confuse me. Are conservatives people who want religion, guns and big government? Or are they small government, pro science gun owners. Are liberals big government, social science hippies? or are they freedom for all, pro personal rights who support safety net programs and science based policy? I can never tell.

I hate a lot of MSimons politics. I think he talks about them too much, as well. But ya'know, it's a free forum. He's free to say what he likes, I'm free to ignore or argue. This is the internet - don't take it too seriously.

But I do wish he'd stop posting twice in a row.

[Diogenes]

Ah, politics. I really hate politics, you know? And the labels confuse me. Are conservatives people who want religion, guns and big government? Or are they small government, pro science gun owners. Are liberals big government, social science hippies? or are they freedom for all, pro personal rights who support safety net programs and science based policy? I can never tell.

I hate a lot of MSimons politics. I think he talks about them too much, as well. But ya'know, it's a free forum. He's free to say what he likes, I'm free to ignore or argue. This is the internet - don't take it too seriously.

But I do wish he'd stop posting twice in a row.

Conservatives and Libertarians agree on one thing certainly. "The government is too big and it spends too much."

We have a vector agreement in direction, we just have a disagreement on the scalar value. Libertarians want to go further in the direction of Zero government, (anarchy) but conservatives don't want to go quite that far.

Liberals, on the other hand, want the government to get bigger, and therefore are diametrically opposed to conservatives and Libertarians on this issue.


In any case, the groups are not a continuum. There is a great deal of overlap between people and ideologies, so it is completely possible for conservatives to be Pro-Science and Religious (but not necessarily the same people, though I don't find it to be a conflict personally.) at the same time.


The Left wing can also be very rich (Actors, Celebrities, Politicians, etc. ) and very poor, (Minorities, Mother earth types, Welfare recipients, etc.) at the same time.

The Left makes it's living by Working for the Government, (Governmental Officials, Bureaucrats, Public Education, Elected Officials, etc.) and by Entertaining the public, (Actors, Writers, Artists, Celebrities) Being born to wealthy parents, (The Kennedys, Ted Turner, Bill Gates, etc.)
and relying on government imposed mandates to survive. (Unions, Lawyers, Welfare recipients. etc. )


The right makes it's living by Producing goods and Services that people willingly pay for in exchange for the good or service. (Business, Engineering, Manufacturing, Fighting (Armed Forces.) Farming, etc. )

The Right enters into government out of Self Defense, not because anyone in the right wants to be in government, but because if THEY don't take the slot, some lefty will, and things will be the worse for everybody.


Of course this is an oversimplifications, but I think the main points are essentially correct.

[JohnSmith]

Disagree with you on a lot of points there. Conservatives don't enter the government in self defense, they enter it for power and to 'stop the decay of society.'
There are liberal libertarians as much as there are conservative libertarians. Liberal libertarians say big government bad, but keep the safety nets in place. After all, conservatives tend to dislike things like gay marriage and drugs, while libertarians say go for it. It's no more illogical.

I'm not sure how you can criticize the left for living on government handouts and not the right. I mean, the massive military/industrial complex wouldn't be around without big government, and that's right wing.


Like I said, I hate politics. The politicians are corrupt, the distinctions stupid, counterproductive and constantly shifting, and the arguments intense.

[KitemanSA]

Conservatives and Libertarians agree on one thing certainly. "The government is too big and it spends too much."

We have a vector agreement in direction, we just have a disagreement on the scalar value. Libertarians want to go further in the direction of Zero government, (anarchy) but conservatives don't want to go quite that far.

Sorry, not so.
Libertarians and Conservatives are 90 degrees out from each other. They may agree on one axis (commercial/economic) of the two dimensional spectrum, but are diametrically opposed on the other (social/personal).

Dems are left(ish), Reps are right(ish), Libs are up, and authoritarians are down. Simple, no?

[Diogenes]

Disagree with you on a lot of points there. Conservatives don't enter the government in self defense, they enter it for power and to 'stop the decay of society.'

Conservatives believe in Free Markets. Conservatives want to make money so that they can take care of themselves and their family and so they can aspire to have good things in their life.
Conservatives undertake this task by using the free market system (capitalism) to create and grow businesses. Anyone getting rich by working for the government is a crook.

Baring the possession of some natural talent, (Beauty, Singing, Dancing, Artistry skills. ect.) the only course left open for upward mobility is hard work and prudent planning. This is the conservative's natural niche.

Government is not. Unfortunately, Government is a left minded endeavor, and if it is not actively held back, it will grow increasingly intrusive and belligerent to buisness.


Conservatives concede that Government is necessary because their are bad people in the World, who will do wicked things to other people if they are not held back by the force of the Government.

Conservatives don't WANT to be in government, they just want the government to STOP GROWING, and they especially want the government to stop changing the rules under which they do business and under which society operates.

There are liberal libertarians as much as there are conservative libertarians. Liberal libertarians say big government bad, but keep the safety nets in place. After all, conservatives tend to dislike things like gay marriage and drugs, while libertarians say go for it. It's no more illogical.

In this guise, libertarians simply want to repeat over and over the same experiments in the past that have always turned out the same way. They don't seem to understand that these ideas have been tried repeatedly in the past, and have always come to no good. (City of Benjamin, and the opium wars.)

I'm not sure how you can criticize the left for living on government handouts and not the right. I mean, the massive military/industrial complex wouldn't be around without big government, and that's right wing..

Defense of the nation is one thing that is ABSOLUTELY essential. It is one of the duties a government MUST do.
The other things that people try to get the government to do are not essential for the survival of a nation. Defense is.



The vast majority of government employees are liberal. In this state, the number one employer is the state government, and most of those employees are Teachers and education bureaucrats. I believe it is the same story in most states. Government bureaucrats always vote to make their share of the pie bigger. They never vote to shrink their power and influence.

Like I said, I hate politics. The politicians are corrupt, the distinctions stupid, counterproductive and constantly shifting, and the arguments intense.

I hate the need to involve myself with politics. Unfortunately, when the left brings you a war, sitting on your butt and doing nothing is not an option. There is much confusion about what is going on in politics, and a major part of the problem is that the Left makes every effort to obfuscate reality. They are assisted in this endeavor by the fact that 90% of the people who report the news, and who work in entertainment, are on THEIR side, and are actively assisting them in hiding the ugly parts of their ideology.

[Diogenes]

Conservatives and Libertarians agree on one thing certainly. "The government is too big and it spends too much."

We have a vector agreement in direction, we just have a disagreement on the scalar value. Libertarians want to go further in the direction of Zero government, (anarchy) but conservatives don't want to go quite that far.

Sorry, not so.
Libertarians and Conservatives are 90 degrees out from each other. They may agree on one axis (commercial/economic) of the two dimensional spectrum, but are diametrically opposed on the other (social/personal).

Dems are left(ish), Reps are right(ish), Libs are up, and authoritarians are down. Simple, no?

I've seen the diagram. While it is convenient, I don't think it's comprehensive. If both Libertarians and Conservatives want to make the government smaller, how is that 90 degrees? It looks to me like it's zero degrees.

90 degrees would be pushing sideways to smaller. I.E. moving government out of one area of regulation into another area of regulation. THAT would be sideways to the direction of smaller government.

Smaller is the same direction.

[Skipjack]

Defense of the nation is one thing that is ABSOLUTELY essential. It is one of the duties a government MUST do.
The other things that people try to get the government to do are not essential for the survival of a nation. Defense is.

I agree. The two most important things the government has to do are defense to the inside and the outside. Everything else is secondary compared to that.

Conservatives concede that Government is necessary because their are bad people in the World, who will do wicked things to other people if they are not held back by the force of the Government.

It is not "their" it is "there are". Sorry, people keep correcting my English on this board, even though I am not a native English speaker. I will therefore take the liberty to do the same.

The vast majority of government employees are liberal. In this state, the number one employer is the state government, and most of those employees are Teachers and education bureaucrats. I believe it is the same story in most states.

Be carful with the teachers. There are a lot of teachers in the US that are employed by private schools.

I personally find it very strange how different the US and Europe are:
I am self employed btw, and in the US I would be considered left wing, even though most everyone in Europe would put me at the far right.
Why right in Europe?
I believe in a strong military and police force.
I am for law and order.
I am for strict, zero tolerance policy towards gangs.
I believe that Guiliani was a good mayor for New York.
I am against uncontrolled, unlimited and unresitricted immigration.
I dont believe that anything but the current scientific knowledge should be tought at schools (e.g. the teachings of Marx and Engels), unless it is an example for how not to do it.
I think that there have to be special schooles for the elite of students. Those that are smarter than the rest.
I think these are more important than special schools for handicaped and disadvantaged people.
I believe that education should not be completely free (but affordable).
I am against to much government. E.g. I dont think that people need be taken care of by the government if they have been unemployed for more than 2 years. Beyond 6 months, unemployment money should not exceed the minimum that is necessary to live.
I am against political correctness.

Why left in the US?
I am an atheist and I believe in strict secularity.
It is my opinion that government does have some responsibilities.
I do think that some government is necessary. Basically government has to take care of all those things that do not work well otherwise. E.g. social programmes and health insurance. I have had heated discussios with libertarians and conservatives here, because I believe that health insurance is not affordable and/or not available for to many people in the US. Biggest problem: Preexisting conditions, even minor ones.
E.g. why get denied cancer treatment, because you had a crooked nose and failed to report that as a preexisting condition. It is stupid!
Health insurance works very well here and it only costs 7.6% of our BIP. That is much less than what it costs in the US.
Of course one could argue that we are free riders, but that is an argument that non everyone would agree with (only US health insurance companies, libertarians and right wingers).
I dont think that anything but the current scientific knowledge should be tought at schools (e.g. Intelligent Design).
I believe that everyone should have access to the best schools he is capable of getting to with his mental abilities. Schools should not be free, but they should be affordable, even for the poorer people. There are some very smart people that are poor. They deserve a chance. Society would benefit from that.
I do believe that small companies deserve a chance on the open market.
There has to be control over monopolies and cartelization.

[JohnSmith]

Conservatives believe in Free Markets. Conservatives want to make money so that they can take care of themselves and their family and so they can aspire to have good things in their life.
Conservatives undertake this task by using the free market system (capitalism) to create and grow businesses. Anyone getting rich by working for the government is a crook.

I'll agree that if you get rich working for the government, you're a crook.
But saying 'Conservatives believe in the Free Market is like saying 'Liberals believe in personal freedom.' Sounds great, neh? But not really useful.
We could also say that conservatives like monopolies, and harm to the consumer be damned. The environment? Who cares about that? Monsanto doesn't care, Suncor doesn't really care. You can say good things, you can say bad things.

Baring the possession of some natural talent, (Beauty, Singing, Dancing, Artistry skills. ect.) the only course left open for upward mobility is hard work and prudent planning. This is the conservative's natural niche.

I.. guess? But it's also the natural niche of liberals. This is capitalism, or some bastard offspring of it, so that's pretty much true no matter what.

Government is not. Unfortunately, Government is a left minded endeavor, and if it is not actively held back, it will grow increasingly intrusive and belligerent to buisness.

Well, yes and no. Yes, government will grow if not stopped. But a conservative government will grow just as much as a liberal one.
And yes, if it's liberal, it probably will be pretty anti-business. Whereas conservative ones are pro-business. Given the choice, I'd rather the government that keeps a close eye on the psychopaths.

Conservatives concede that Government is necessary because their are bad people in the World, who will do wicked things to other people if they are not held back by the force of the Government.

Again, sort of. Conservatives generally want to stop the fall of society, save everyone from the bad people - it's just that mostly, they're the only ones who consider the 'bad' people bad. And liberals try and protect the country from threat as well. Just internal threats. Like, you know. Banks that lend at stupid rates. Rampant bankruptcy. Massive unemployment. That kind of thing.

Conservatives don't WANT to be in government, they just want the government to STOP GROWING, and they especially want the government to stop changing the rules under which they do business and under which society operates.

Here I must call bullshit. No agreement, no sort of. Conservatives want to be in government, they want it to keep growing, they want more power, and they want new rules that favor the businesses that pay them the most - it's free market at it's best!

In this guise, libertarians simply want to repeat over and over the same experiments in the past that have always turned out the same way. They don't seem to understand that these ideas have been tried repeatedly in the past, and have always come to no good. (City of Benjamin, and the opium wars.)

In this guise? In most guises, I would think. I'm just saying that left libs do exist, and make as much sense as right libs.

Defense of the nation is one thing that is ABSOLUTELY essential. It is one of the duties a government MUST do.
The other things that people try to get the government to do are not essential for the survival of a nation. Defense is.

Defense, sure. something like half the economy, and a yearly input that is more than twice anyone else puts in? Who is the US afraid is going to attack?
I mean, that's pretty specific, and I don't mind most country's defense spending, but the US is kinda ridiculous on that count. And if you don't think that there are other things required for a nation to survive, I suggest you look at collapsed third world economies. Hell, look at North Korea. Great (for the area, anyway) defense, but they fall all the same.

The vast majority of government employees are liberal. In this state, the number one employer is the state government, and most of those employees are Teachers and education bureaucrats. I believe it is the same story in most states. Government bureaucrats always vote to make their share of the pie bigger. They never vote to shrink their power and influence.

Yes. Yes. and Yes. So? Conservative bureaucrats don't vote to shrink their power either. And *gasp* teachers believe in equal opportunity and intrinsic human value? The horrors they must be teaching our children...
And why aren't conservatives becoming teachers? Because you don't make lots of money being a teacher.

I hate the need to involve myself with politics. Unfortunately, when the left brings you a war, sitting on your butt and doing nothing is not an option. There is much confusion about what is going on in politics, and a major part of the problem is that the Left makes every effort to obfuscate reality. They are assisted in this endeavor by the fact that 90% of the people who report the news, and who work in entertainment, are on THEIR side, and are actively assisting them in hiding the ugly parts of their ideology.

Hmm. A war, is it? I guess that explains the toxic waste spewed by Fox and the like. But arn't chemical weapons banned?


I know that I've got some gross generalization in here, but so do you. And liberals are just as stupid as conservatives, make just as many idiot decisions. But most everyone here is conservative, so you see the stupidity of the liberals way more than the conservatives.

[Diogenes]

Defense of the nation is one thing that is ABSOLUTELY essential. It is one of the duties a government MUST do.
The other things that people try to get the government to do are not essential for the survival of a nation. Defense is.

I agree. The two most important things the government has to do are defense to the inside and the outside. Everything else is secondary compared to that.

Conservatives concede that Government is necessary because their are bad people in the World, who will do wicked things to other people if they are not held back by the force of the Government.

It is not "their" it is "there are". Sorry, people keep correcting my English on this board, even though I am not a native English speaker. I will therefore take the liberty to do the same.

I never correct anyone's spelling or English because i'm critical of their thinking, not their means of expressing it. Since we are into correcting game today, In the following sentence you should have used the word "too" instead of "to."

"I have had heated discussios with libertarians and conservatives here, because I believe that health insurance is not affordable and/or not available for to many people in the US."

This is similar to my mistake, no ?

The vast majority of government employees are liberal. In this state, the number one employer is the state government, and most of those employees are Teachers and education bureaucrats. I believe it is the same story in most states.

Be carful with the teachers. There are a lot of teachers in the US that are employed by private schools.

I personally find it very strange how different the US and Europe are:
I am self employed btw, and in the US I would be considered left wing, even though most everyone in Europe would put me at the far right.
Why right in Europe?
I believe in a strong military and police force.
I am for law and order.
I am for strict, zero tolerance policy towards gangs.
I believe that Guiliani was a good mayor for New York.
I am against uncontrolled, unlimited and unresitricted immigration.
I dont believe that anything but the current scientific knowledge should be tought at schools (e.g. the teachings of Marx and Engels), unless it is an example for how not to do it.
I think that there have to be special schooles for the elite of students. Those that are smarter than the rest.
I think these are more important than special schools for handicaped and disadvantaged people.
I believe that education should not be completely free (but affordable).
I am against to much government. E.g. I dont think that people need be taken care of by the government if they have been unemployed for more than 2 years. Beyond 6 months, unemployment money should not exceed the minimum that is necessary to live.
I am against political correctness.

Why left in the US?
I am an atheist and I believe in strict secularity.
It is my opinion that government does have some responsibilities.
I do think that some government is necessary. Basically government has to take care of all those things that do not work well otherwise. E.g. social programmes and health insurance. I have had heated discussios with libertarians and conservatives here, because I believe that health insurance is not affordable and/or not available for to many people in the US. Biggest problem: Preexisting conditions, even minor ones.
E.g. why get denied cancer treatment, because you had a crooked nose and failed to report that as a preexisting condition. It is stupid!
Health insurance works very well here and it only costs 7.6% of our BIP. That is much less than what it costs in the US.
Of course one could argue that we are free riders, but that is an argument that non everyone would agree with (only US health insurance companies, libertarians and right wingers).
I dont think that anything but the current scientific knowledge should be tought at schools (e.g. Intelligent Design).
I believe that everyone should have access to the best schools he is capable of getting to with his mental abilities. Schools should not be free, but they should be affordable, even for the poorer people. There are some very smart people that are poor. They deserve a chance. Society would benefit from that.
I do believe that small companies deserve a chance on the open market.
There has to be control over monopolies and cartelization.

I dare say there is very little I have to quibble with you about, though it appears you have been listening to the Media propaganda about the right wing of the U.S. which is of course dutifully reported by people in New York and Los Angeles who loathe and detest us anyway.

Religion IS a big part of a large plurality of the U.S. right wing, but it is not a primary issue among the Majority of the U.S. right wing. God and Country is an old concept that still resonates with the more traditional parts of our society, but most of the anger on this issue is the result of people attempting to force traditional religious stuff out of society.

I am not an Athiest, I am an Agnostic. Athiesm is just as certain in it's beliefs as is religion. With that in mind, I believe religion, and specifically Christianity, has been a force for good in the history of mankind since it was first created.

People believing weird things doesn't bother me. I think religions are part of mankind's genetic makeup, and generally beneficial to survival for mankind.


On the other points you mentioned, I have no strong disagreement with any of them. I likewise believe that the government cannot let people starve, or die from lack of available treatment, however I do disagree with the current methodology of solving these problems. (of course, the British let the Irish die by the millions, with malice aforethought during the Irish Potato famine.)

Too much control is given to people who are basically fools. (Government Bureaucrats and welfare recipients.)


One of my first jobs was to work as a stock boy in a grocery store. I saw hundreds of people come into the store and buy totally inappropriate crap using food stamps. Lobsters, steak, candy, soda pop, etc. They would buy a piece of bubble gum (5 cents) and with the change they got back with their $1.00 food stamp, they would buy cigarettes.

People who can't manage money are poor. So what do we do for the poor? We give them money to mismanage.


In any case, by my reckoning, in the U.S. of A., you are firmly on the right, probably leaning libertarian, but firmly on the right none the less.

[KitemanSA]

I've seen the diagram. While it is convenient, I don't think it's comprehensive. If both Libertarians and Conservatives want to make the government smaller, how is that 90 degrees? It looks to me like it's zero degrees.

90 degrees would be pushing sideways to smaller. I.E. moving government out of one area of regulation into another area of regulation. THAT would be sideways to the direction of smaller government.

Smaller is the same direction.

Ask a Republican if he or she wants to get rid of the DEA. Answer almost ALWAYS, "no"! They don't want to make government smaller, just the parts they don't like. They are all too willing to grow government for their own agenda.

Libs agree with Reps regarding making the government smaller wrt welfare and other such "Great Society" give-away programs. But they also agree with the Dems wrt getting rid of some of the DEA like "Moral Majority" type programs.

The Dems and Reps are both schitzoid. They both like half the government and dislike half. The just totally disagree on which half.

The result, Dems win, grow left. Reps win, grow right, back and forth, back and forth, grow GROW, GROW!! How are they really different? They both grow the government and they are both insane. Oh well.

[Diogenes]

I know that I've got some gross generalization in here, but so do you. And liberals are just as stupid as conservatives, make just as many idiot decisions. But most everyone here is conservative, so you see the stupidity of the liberals way more than the conservatives.

I'm afraid my response is going to seem like an endless iteration of the "No True Scottsman" fallacy, but never the less, I have to point out what to me are obvious distinctions.

Your description of conservatives resembles my description of Rockefeller Republicans. I can't stand those people. We appear to be talking about two different groups of people.

You seem to have some serious misunderstandings about what is and who are conservative. For example in this sentence :

Well, yes and no. Yes, government will grow if not stopped. But a conservative government will grow just as much as a liberal one.
And yes, if it's liberal, it probably will be pretty anti-business. Whereas conservative ones are pro-business. Given the choice, I'd rather the government that keeps a close eye on the psychopaths.

A conservative growing government is an oxymoron. The only condition in which a conservative would want to grow government is if and when it isn't doing something that it is supposed to be doing, like defending the country. It is easy to understand how you may have come to be misled, because we have had numerous examples of Politicians who claim to be "conservatives" doing the very thing you mention. George W. Bush, and George H.W. Bush are examples of people who claimed to be conservative, then implemented an agenda almost the exact opposite of their stated ideology.

The Republican congress from about 2000-2006, were claiming to be conservative, but they supported pork barrel projects and fiscal stupidity just as the Democrats did!

Here I must call bullshit. No agreement, no sort of. Conservatives want to be in government, they want it to keep growing, they want more power, and they want new rules that favor the businesses that pay them the most - it's free market at it's best!

And here *I* must call bullshit. How do rules that favor businesses who pay them equal a free market ? How can the market be free if the Government is favoring someone?

This reminds me of the examples people used to give me about Christian crusades, and inquisitions, and all sorts of other very UnChristianlike behavior. The conduct is in conflict with the ideology.

There is a popular term for Republicans who behave like Democrats. RINO. (Republican in Name Only.) That is the sort of conservative you are talking about when you talk about people using the power of Government to gain an upper hand. Read what Walter Williams has to say about this sort of thing, and you'll have a better understanding of how conservatives view this sort of conduct.

Yes. Yes. and Yes. So? Conservative bureaucrats don't vote to shrink their power either. And *gasp* teachers believe in equal opportunity and intrinsic human value? The horrors they must be teaching our children...
And why aren't conservatives becoming teachers? Because you don't make lots of money being a teacher.

Conservative Bureaucrat is another oxymoron. Conservatives in government DO attempt to reduce the size and scope of the bureacracy which they govern. Governor Tommy Tompson and Governor Ronald Reagan, both sought to reduce the size and scope of their governments.
Bill Bennet tried for years to minimize the impact of the Dept. of Education, and various other governmental officials have tried to reign in the power and expansion of the Government. It's difficult when you have a massive governmental agency which doesn't want to get smaller.

Hmm. A war, is it? I guess that explains the toxic waste spewed by Fox and the like. But arn't chemical weapons banned?

What a hateful thing to say. Independent research organizations have objectively declared that Fox news really is fair and balanced. (just saw that last week.) Far more so than the other networks.

Study after study has shown that the mass media is infested with Liberals throughout.

As i've pointed out numerous times, the Media Hubs in the USA are New York and Los Angeles. New York voted for Obama by 80%. All media employees are Union members, and the employees of all networks must be drawn from the potential employment pool of New York City, more or less. Since Liberals tend to go into journalism by a far higher margin than conservatives, the odds of you getting a conservative journalist are virtually nil.

Virtually 90% of the employees of the News Networks are Liberal, with the other 10% being independent or libertarian leaning.

If the networks were run by employees from the U.S. Armed forces, the shoe would be on the other foot, but it is not. Liberals RUN Media in this country, and they insert their biases into stories they cover, just as much as they insert their biases into stories they refuse to cover, such as the ACORN scandal, and Climategate.

Fox is the ONLY network that isn't totally liberal, and that's because a Savy Rupert Murdock Hired people who realized they could corral the largest viewership in the Nation by getting conservative commentators to host their news network.

[Diogenes]

Ask a Republican if he or she wants to get rid of the DEA. Answer almost ALWAYS, "no"! They don't want to make government smaller, just the parts they don't like. They are all too willing to grow government for their own agenda.

Libertarians like to trot out the Government Prohibition against drugs, as though the exception proves the rule.

You are correct, most Republicans have no interest in disbanding the DEA, but that's because most people regard it as a LAW Enforcement agency.

Law Enforcement is one of the legitimate roles of government, like Defense.

You may not agree with the Laws that it enforces, but i'm sure that Terrorists don't like the CIA, and White collar criminals don't like the FBI.

You want to change the laws ? Change them. Convince others that allowing the free exchange of Drugs is good for them and good for the country. That seems like a tough sell to me, though MSimon has convinced me that Marijuana at least is probably no worse than Alcohol.


That being said, ask most Republicans how they feel about the Department of Education, and the Department of Energy, and the National Endowment for the Arts, and the Department of Agriculture, etc.

Most Republicans would be on the docks wishing them a fine farewell as they sailed off into the sunset.

Libs agree with Reps regarding making the government smaller wrt welfare and other such "Great Society" give-away programs. But they also agree with the Dems wrt getting rid of some of the DEA like "Moral Majority" type programs.

The Dems and Reps are both schitzoid. They both like half the government and dislike half. The just totally disagree on which half.

The result, Dems win, grow left. Reps win, grow right, back and forth, back and forth, grow GROW, GROW!! How are they really different? They both grow the government and they are both insane. Oh well.

Conservatives acknowledge the fact that Government continues to grow even under "Conservative" administrations, and many of us bemoan the fact that nothing seemingly can be done about it. Many of us blame this on the "Beltway" phenomenon. Erstwhile conservatives are just fine until they get to Washington D.C., and then they simply go native.

Surrounded by a like minded population which makes it's living off the government, they move apart from the ideals of the people who sent them there. Whether it be monetary bribes, or the headiness of wielding power, for whatever reason they seem to change, and become very different from the kind of people they were when they were sent there.

There are exceptions.

I must say that in the absence of contrary knowledge, I am immensely proud of the two Senators from my state. Senator James Inhofe, and Senator Tom Coburn. So far, they have done a very good job of standing up for what I, and most other people in my state believe in.

Tom Coburn against Fiscal stupidity and Pork Barrel spending, and Senator Inhofe against the Global Warming insanity.

[JohnSmith]

You're right, your response is just a No true Scottsman. How -you- define a conservative really doesn't matter. Unless you don't mind me saying, "hey, all those stupid things liberals do? That just means they're not liberal."
Great. Argument ended. I guess we can go home now?

Hmm, but I guess there's a few other items to address. The buying and selling of politicians -while illegal- is a time honored tradition. And that is free market capitalism, really. Just like bootleg products and toxic dumping practices.

And as for the crusades, yes, that example hurts, eh? Certainly, the conduct and ideology don't match, but so what? They still were christians, even if you'd like to gloss over that fact. And since the vast majority of 'conservative' politicians don't match your definition of conservative, maybe you should change your definitions to match reality?
"During the crusades, christiandom formed a rather bloodthirsty army."
"During the turn of the millennium, conservatives created massive debt by extending the government into every aspect of people's lives."

Conservative Bureaucrat is not an oxymoron. A bureaucrat is one who works in a bureaucracy and a government is a textbook example.


I guess it is, and I probably have been biased against it. But glen beck pisses me off. I really didn't have an opinion till THAT whole shitstorm started.

And wait a second, they're conservative commentators, but they're not biased at all? Good thing they're not liberal, those guys bias ALL the news.
Oh, and as an engineer it pleases me greatly to ask, where are your citations?