• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ron Paul: ‘Neocon influence’ is infiltrating tea parties

disneydude said:
Ya musta said something that I liked.....my left-wing buddy. ;)

See...I gave you another!
Click to expand...

Let me go back and retrack what I said then.............I never want you on my side...........
 
Chappy said:
Can anyone point out any specific agenda items of the Tea Party movement at all? Conservative, liberal, whatever. Any specific agenda items at all?

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

The only consistant agenda items I've seen throughout the various tea party movements and presentations has been:

Low Taxes for all, be they rich or poor
Reduction of, and fighting against creation of new, entitlement programs such as universal health care
Fiscal Responsibility when it comes to the debt and deficits.

Those are three things routinely found within any Tea Party gathering or movement it seems. I would, happily, love to see Dana show how those things aren't conservative and are unamerican, as those are part of their agenda and we're told...according to Dana...that they're agenda is wholey unamerican and non-conservative.

My issue is not necessarily with Dana's original thesis, that the Tea Parties have been infiltrated by the type of Republicans like Navy Pride who are Big Government, Big Spending, Big Intrusion into our lives type of Republicans that are "Conservative" in a traditional sense only when it benefits them and then rationalizes it away the moment they need to grow the government, spend a ton, or intrude into our personal lives. The very fact that many social issues are beginning to become more important in the Tea Parties is an example of this.

My issue is with Dana, who apparently is lowering his standards of posting now that he's having to produce blog entry's and seeming thinks he must make ludicrous pronouncements without backing them up, was the over the top exaggerated rhetoric he shoved into his post attempting to prove his point and instead simply made his entire post look like a joke.

danarhea said:
Actually, Ron Paul's message is getting through. His son, Rand Paul, is running for Senator on pretty much the same platform as his father did for president.
Click to expand...

Actually, "pretty much" the same is a great way to put it. Here's the thing though, you're FAR under playing the "pretty much" point. Rand is far more pragmatic and realistic in his approach to things and not nearly as keen to go off on conspiratorial tangents or immediately start talking about shooting for extremes in everything he does.

Final note: The term "Social Conservative" is an oxymoron.
Click to expand...

Since you still haven't addressed my last question concerning your extremely exaggerated blanket point I'm unsure if you'll do it for this but, please, care to explain this wonderful bumper sticker slogan and why you believe it to be true?
 
I get a kick out of some of these so called Conservatives like zyphlin worship at the altar of Ron Paul......The man will do anything for publicity as I said earlier go on that socialist Rachel Maddoe's program on MSNBC......The only thing he can win is that seat from Texas otherwise he is a loser......I get so tired of hearing them worship this loser and now you got the son who is probably a bigger loser.........

Please my wannabe Conservative friends give it up or you will make a fool of yourselves like you did in 2008...........
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
I get a kick out of some of these so called Conservatives like zyphlin worship at the altar of Ron Paul......The man will do anything for publicity as I said earlier go on that socialist Rachel Maddoe's program on MSNBC......The only thing he can win is that seat from Texas otherwise he is a loser......I get so tired of hearing them worship this loser and now you got the son who is probably a bigger loser.........

Please my wannabe Conservative friends give it up or you will make a fool of yourselves like you did in 2008...........
Click to expand...

Navy, this is why no one takes a lot of what you say seriously, because you don't actually make points you just spout whatever comes to mind based on an immediate reaction. Within 5 minutes I could find you a multitude of threads where I've stated my disagreement with Paul, and some of his biggest fans, and why I think he will never, ever, win anything on a national scale and was doomed from the beginning for a variety of factors.

That said...

I'm not so blind in my ideology that I define "Conservatism" as whatever makes the most sense when rationalized against the actions of those with (R)'s next to their names today. Paul is a staunch conservative, though at times with far to an extreme and unpragmatic approach to be effective. He did have a number of good messages.

Yes, truly the loser of conservatism, only able to win a seat in one of the most conservative states in the union...he must really be a socialist!

Continue to lambast others as "So Called" and "wannabe" conservatives Navy. Please, continue to do so as you push for the Nanny State of the government telling individuals how to run their lives. Please, continue to do so as you justify taking more and more money from China and others as we drive ourselves in debt trying to wage a traditional war vs an untraditional enemy and nation build two separate countries. Please, continue to do so as you continue to support ignoring and tearing up portions of the constitution because its convenient to you while hypocritically are so aggressive when it comes to the 2nd amendment, making it obvious you don't care about the constitution but only the parts you like. Please, continue doing all these things Navy and then calling people who DARE to disagree with those notions your "left wing friend" or "wannabe conservatives" because you're not convincing anyone, you're not causing people to stand up and cheer and go "you know that Navy's right", you're just making people who actually take the time to read peoples posts and not respond on whatever immediate thing being said as if its in its own little bubble laugh at the stupidity of the notion.

There is no tenet nor principle of conservatism that says one must run around yelling "SOCIALIST!" five times fast about anyone and everyone you disagree with. There is no tenet nor principle of conservatism that says that simply because someone with a (R) next to their name does something its good and someone with a (D) next to it is bad. There is no tenet nor principle of conservatism that says one can not look at previous history, realize and own up to mistakes, and attempt to not make them in the future...on the contrary, that's the very meaning of personal accountability and responsibility. There is no tenet nor principle of conservatism that says you must believe Barack Obama is a muslim, ignorantly and bigotedly try to imply he's Kenyan through backhanded or straight forward ways, or suggest that he's the modern Hitler. There is no tenet nor principle of conservatism that says if you wave the magical "T" word around that suddenly you can ignore the foundations of conservative ideology such as fiscal responsibility, small government, and limited government intrusion.

You like to talk about people being wannabe conservatives often, yet you never back it up save for your same tired continual rhetoric that boils down to nothing but "You don't do it as I do it so you're not".

You are the definitive neo-con, in every sense of the word. Now, I don't agree with Dana, that somehow this is a vile beast that is wholey non-conservative. I simply call you "My left wing friend" cause I'm tired of your bull**** calling me and others that when, by using your standard, you would be it too. You are a conservative, greatly social conservative, quasi when it comes to military issues, and only when it benefits you for fiscal and governmental issues. You are so socially conservative that you don't give a care if you have to use the government, and trample upon CONSERVATIVE government principle, to force people into that social norm. You believe in a strong, well funded military, but are hugely into nation building and constant intervention. You are for fiscal conservatism, when it comes to tax cuts or welfare programs...unless your side pushes the program in which case you don't mind...but have no care if we turn around and spend 3 times that amount on war efforts, thus having the same affect with less direct benefit to our citizens. You want a small government that's out of your life, when it comes to social services, yet continually and routinely want every segment of security to be expanded, in size, cost, and ability to intervene in our lives...or more importantly, the lives of people you feel deserve to be prejudiced against.

You are a neo-con, in every single sense of the word. I disagree with Dana, that doesn't make you a conservative. You are one, just a very strangely twisted one in some cases. You are the mirror image in many ways to the libertarian minded conservative. Yet those individuals, also, are conservatives. As are the paleo-conservatives.

I'm tired of this idiotic notion of there being a "true" conservative, and especially tired of libertarians telling people continually how somehow they're the "true" conservative. The closest to the claim is a paleo-conservative, and even that varies. Conservatism is a very, very broad ideology that has enough branches that it is possible for people to follow portions and ignore others. The issue however....be it with Libertarians arguing that abortion at the state level should still be kept legal, or neo-cons arguing that pre-emptive intervention and nation building is correct, to the religious right arguing that we need to constitutionally ban gay marriage, to even paleo-conservatives trying to moderate various positions more to the middle....is each individual ideology taking something that is a bit off from traditional conservatism and trying to lecture everyone else about how "no no no, you are doing it 100% wrong and MY way is the only way that a REAL conservative can do it now". Here's the dirty secret...I dare say every single various faction of conservatives, if you find one that can actually articulate that factions ideology well instead of just act like a mindless parrot, can probably justify their view through conservatism in a way that if you are intellectually honest you could at least vaguely see, if not agree with.

Going back to the Tea Parties....

As I've stated in another thread, if they can keep the social issues to a minimum, such as immigration, then it will be a good thing. The Tea Parties had begun to bring Fiscal and Governmental conservatism BACK to the forefront and seems to have been starting to rebalanced the table from the past 8 years when it has been the somewhat twisted Neo-Conservative view of "Defense" and social issues as the two giants in the room with the other two towards the back. If it brings BALANCE back to the Republicans it will be a good thing.

However, if the big social conservatives get control and start interjecting too much of that into it then the chance for balance is going to be lost. Its moving that direction but not there yet.

That said, this is a loose knit nation wide "movement" that, frankly, is less truly organized in ideology and goals than the "I'm with CoCo" movement. One could go to a tea party focusing almost singularly on fiscal responsibility while another is far more social focused while yet another may be simply anti-establishment in feeling. As a movement grows the "Core" of that movement expands as do those on the edges of it, and more variety enters in diluting the original goals and thoughts of said movement. This is especially true when there is no true leadership.

This is why the entire notion of "Tea Party" candidates is nothing but a buzz word, an attempt at politicians to harness citizen outrage and action to their best benefit. Brown was a supposed "Tea Party" Candidate yet he'd be viewed likely far differently in a place like Texas or Alabama.

Its also why Sarah Palin attempting to "lead" the movement bothers me, as she has shown her focus and views to be far less balanced and far from the original intent and focus of the Tea Parties and I truly wonder, if she attempted to "lead" it if she would run with the Tea Parties original message or shape the Tea Parties into HER message. Such a movement likely will never be able to have a true "leader" because frankly it is FAR too diverse and far to segmented from one group to another to truly have a definitive leader. One can simply look at the difference between my experiences with the Tea Parties and Navy's to see that to imply or suggest that there is some kind of extremely large nation wide agenda and unity is ludicrous. At most the few ties that bind is low taxes, no public health care, and attempting to return to a fiscally responsible government...and even that last one is changing from an overall message of responsibility to a neo-con "Responsible unless we say the T word" message in some tea parties.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I don't buy this "traditional conservatives" stuff. Ron Paul is a libertarian. A libertarian is not the same thing as a conservative, traditional or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Gay marriage is pretty much the only issue where conservatives and libertarians consistently disagree. Maybe drugs too.

Everything else is more ambiguous. There are pro-life libertarians; Ron Paul is one of them. There are plenty of hawkish libertarians as well. The rest is a matter of degree; for example, only the most extreme libertarians/fiscal conservatives want to eliminate Medicare and welfare in general entirely. On the vast majority of issues, the generic conservative stance and the generic libertarian stance is the same.


"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path." - Ronald Reagan, 1975 Reason interview
 
Last edited:
Eh, he might be neoconservative, but Navy is just, well, seemingly not the best of company. To me, there are a great deal of neoconservatives who are brilliant or thoughtful in conversation about a great many things. If we consider David Horowitz to be a demonstration of neoconservative principles, then he can demonstrate some of the least likable qualities of the associated label (like, for instance, why I would be kind of hesitant to ever meet Norm Podhoretz). Navy is like a broken record of Don Rickles. :mrgreen:

Calling him neoconservative is problematic, because a great deal of neoconservatives consider themselves men of the left, but unable to completely subscribe to the label for one reason or another.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Navy, this is why no one takes a lot of what you say seriously, because you don't actually make points you just spout whatever comes to mind based on an immediate reaction. Within 5 minutes I could find you a multitude of threads where I've stated my disagreement with Paul, and some of his biggest fans, and why I think he will never, ever, win anything on a national scale and was doomed from the beginning for a variety of factors.

That said...

I'm not so blind in my ideology that I define "Conservatism" as whatever makes the most sense when rationalized against the actions of those with (R)'s next to their names today. Paul is a staunch conservative, though at times with far to an extreme and unpragmatic approach to be effective. He did have a number of good messages.

Yes, truly the loser of conservatism, only able to win a seat in one of the most conservative states in the union...he must really be a socialist!

Continue to lambast others as "So Called" and "wannabe" conservatives Navy. Please, continue to do so as you push for the Nanny State of the government telling individuals how to run their lives. Please, continue to do so as you justify taking more and more money from China and others as we drive ourselves in debt trying to wage a traditional war vs an untraditional enemy and nation build two separate countries. Please, continue to do so as you continue to support ignoring and tearing up portions of the constitution because its convenient to you while hypocritically are so aggressive when it comes to the 2nd amendment, making it obvious you don't care about the constitution but only the parts you like. Please, continue doing all these things Navy and then calling people who DARE to disagree with those notions your "left wing friend" or "wannabe conservatives" because you're not convincing anyone, you're not causing people to stand up and cheer and go "you know that Navy's right", you're just making people who actually take the time to read peoples posts and not respond on whatever immediate thing being said as if its in its own little bubble laugh at the stupidity of the notion.

There is no tenet nor principle of conservatism that says one must run around yelling "SOCIALIST!" five times fast about anyone and everyone you disagree with. There is no tenet nor principle of conservatism that says that simply because someone with a (R) next to their name does something its good and someone with a (D) next to it is bad. There is no tenet nor principle of conservatism that says one can not look at previous history, realize and own up to mistakes, and attempt to not make them in the future...on the contrary, that's the very meaning of personal accountability and responsibility. There is no tenet nor principle of conservatism that says you must believe Barack Obama is a muslim, ignorantly and bigotedly try to imply he's Kenyan through backhanded or straight forward ways, or suggest that he's the modern Hitler. There is no tenet nor principle of conservatism that says if you wave the magical "T" word around that suddenly you can ignore the foundations of conservative ideology such as fiscal responsibility, small government, and limited government intrusion.

You like to talk about people being wannabe conservatives often, yet you never back it up save for your same tired continual rhetoric that boils down to nothing but "You don't do it as I do it so you're not".

You are the definitive neo-con, in every sense of the word. Now, I don't agree with Dana, that somehow this is a vile beast that is wholey non-conservative. I simply call you "My left wing friend" cause I'm tired of your bull**** calling me and others that when, by using your standard, you would be it too. You are a conservative, greatly social conservative, quasi when it comes to military issues, and only when it benefits you for fiscal and governmental issues. You are so socially conservative that you don't give a care if you have to use the government, and trample upon CONSERVATIVE government principle, to force people into that social norm. You believe in a strong, well funded military, but are hugely into nation building and constant intervention. You are for fiscal conservatism, when it comes to tax cuts or welfare programs...unless your side pushes the program in which case you don't mind...but have no care if we turn around and spend 3 times that amount on war efforts, thus having the same affect with less direct benefit to our citizens. You want a small government that's out of your life, when it comes to social services, yet continually and routinely want every segment of security to be expanded, in size, cost, and ability to intervene in our lives...or more importantly, the lives of people you feel deserve to be prejudiced against.

You are a neo-con, in every single sense of the word. I disagree with Dana, that doesn't make you a conservative. You are one, just a very strangely twisted one in some cases. You are the mirror image in many ways to the libertarian minded conservative. Yet those individuals, also, are conservatives. As are the paleo-conservatives.

I'm tired of this idiotic notion of there being a "true" conservative, and especially tired of libertarians telling people continually how somehow they're the "true" conservative. The closest to the claim is a paleo-conservative, and even that varies. Conservatism is a very, very broad ideology that has enough branches that it is possible for people to follow portions and ignore others. The issue however....be it with Libertarians arguing that abortion at the state level should still be kept legal, or neo-cons arguing that pre-emptive intervention and nation building is correct, to the religious right arguing that we need to constitutionally ban gay marriage, to even paleo-conservatives trying to moderate various positions more to the middle....is each individual ideology taking something that is a bit off from traditional conservatism and trying to lecture everyone else about how "no no no, you are doing it 100% wrong and MY way is the only way that a REAL conservative can do it now". Here's the dirty secret...I dare say every single various faction of conservatives, if you find one that can actually articulate that factions ideology well instead of just act like a mindless parrot, can probably justify their view through conservatism in a way that if you are intellectually honest you could at least vaguely see, if not agree with.

Going back to the Tea Parties....

As I've stated in another thread, if they can keep the social issues to a minimum, such as immigration, then it will be a good thing. The Tea Parties had begun to bring Fiscal and Governmental conservatism BACK to the forefront and seems to have been starting to rebalanced the table from the past 8 years when it has been the somewhat twisted Neo-Conservative view of "Defense" and social issues as the two giants in the room with the other two towards the back. If it brings BALANCE back to the Republicans it will be a good thing.

However, if the big social conservatives get control and start interjecting too much of that into it then the chance for balance is going to be lost. Its moving that direction but not there yet.

That said, this is a loose knit nation wide "movement" that, frankly, is less truly organized in ideology and goals than the "I'm with CoCo" movement. One could go to a tea party focusing almost singularly on fiscal responsibility while another is far more social focused while yet another may be simply anti-establishment in feeling. As a movement grows the "Core" of that movement expands as do those on the edges of it, and more variety enters in diluting the original goals and thoughts of said movement. This is especially true when there is no true leadership.

This is why the entire notion of "Tea Party" candidates is nothing but a buzz word, an attempt at politicians to harness citizen outrage and action to their best benefit. Brown was a supposed "Tea Party" Candidate yet he'd be viewed likely far differently in a place like Texas or Alabama.

Its also why Sarah Palin attempting to "lead" the movement bothers me, as she has shown her focus and views to be far less balanced and far from the original intent and focus of the Tea Parties and I truly wonder, if she attempted to "lead" it if she would run with the Tea Parties original message or shape the Tea Parties into HER message. Such a movement likely will never be able to have a true "leader" because frankly it is FAR too diverse and far to segmented from one group to another to truly have a definitive leader. One can simply look at the difference between my experiences with the Tea Parties and Navy's to see that to imply or suggest that there is some kind of extremely large nation wide agenda and unity is ludicrous. At most the few ties that bind is low taxes, no public health care, and attempting to return to a fiscally responsible government...and even that last one is changing from an overall message of responsibility to a neo-con "Responsible unless we say the T word" message in some tea parties.
Click to expand...

Wow, why don't you tell us how you really feel;) I knew I could get your goat but not like this........I will take a little time to digest this and unfortunately the Scotch on the Rocks are getting to me..........I will say that contrary to what you say there are a lot of people in here that are friends of mine and call themselves Conservatives and agree with me on most issues and vice versa..........We fight the good fight against radical liberalism every day because unlike you we believe it is a serious issue and could destroy this country....

I am sorry I don't meet your standards as a Conservative and you think I am a neo con but that could not be further from the truth...I just love to pull the strings of these Liberals and sometimes go a little overboard doing so.....The people that count here know that........

I will try and add a little more in and answer to this bull **** tomorrow...

Have a nice evening......
 
Chappy said:
Can anyone point out any specific agenda items of the Tea Party movement at all? Conservative, liberal, whatever. Any specific agenda items at all?

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Watering the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots & tyrants?

PHP4A837649EA149.jpg
 
Zyphlin said:
You responded to that question giving me a long rambling speech about neo-conservatism and not giving me one single thing from the Tea Parties agenda that is not conservative.

So no, I'm not making blanket statements. Dana is. I'm asking him, or anyone else, to back it up with something substantial and specific.
Click to expand...

I think the implication is that the "Tea Party" has been co-opted by certain neo-conservative interests; Hannity comes to mind, as well as Palin, though I wouldn't really call her a "neo-con" (neo-cons actually have a coherent view on foreign policy, contentious though it may be) but she is of the same mold; advantageous and opportunistic - a politician.

I agree that the "true" tea party values are generally conservative, but the fact of the matter is that the tea party is not politically homogeneous; tea-partiers from Chicago are probably different than tea-partiers from Wasilla, so it's not really appropriate to generalize about a "tea party agenda".

I think it's important to recognize the distinction between certain elements of the tea party. Some of them are just opportunists trying to cash in on populist angst and don't really represent the movement's origins or interests.

I think Paul has plenty reason to take exception to these political parasites.
 
ScottD said:
The Tea Party movement is an excuse for groups with barely connected ideals to ban together to make themselve's seem more popular. Or at least that is what it has become. The more the Tea Party moves to an actual platform, the less support it will have.
Click to expand...

Yea, Americans who disagree with Obama should just sit down and shut up like good peasants. How dare they presume to involve themselves in the political process whilst the Messiah graces the Oval Office!
 
Ethereal said:
Yea, Americans who disagree with Obama should just sit down and shut up like good peasants. How dare they presume to involve themselves in the political process whilst the Messiah graces the Oval Office!
Click to expand...

Way to totally distort that comment. How does saying that the Tea Party Movement is a group of loosely connected people dissatisfied with government who aren't as popular as some media outlets make them out to be equate to telling those people to sit down and shut up? It doesn't. And it's not Obama that pushes them out of the political process but rather our electoral process.

The one thing that all Tea Party movements can agree on is that they don't like Obama and the Democrats in the White House and with control of Congress. However, if you ask 10 different tea partiers what they are for you'll get 10 different answers. If you ask those same 10 different tea partiers how to implement their policies, you'll get 30 different answers.

All of the tea partiers and tea baggers are conservative, there's no denying this. But what kind of conservative are they? There's paleo-conservatives, neo-conservatives, libertarian conservatives, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and religious conservatives, just to name a few. Currently, they have less representation in a Democratic-controlled Congress and they are pissed about it.

But here's the key issue that they are waking up to: even though these people are a type of conservative, they do not necessarily get representation in a Republican-controlled Congress either.

This is because of our plurality voting system, which naturally leads to a two-party system. A two-party system is created in an electoral system that requires whoever gets the most votes wins the position. This means that the different conservatives must all duke it out amongst themselves to see which form of conservatism will win out and take control of the conservative party; the same goes for the liberal party. On the surface, it looks like either conservatives or liberals come to power in government, but in truth what happens is a faction of conservatives win out to lead the rest of the conservatives and a faction of liberals win out to lead the rest of the liberals. It causes factions that are slightly different from each other not to receive representation in government, which prevents people who ascribe to those factions' policies from being heard in government.

This is why we need to institute some kind of system that allows for a multi-party system, so all the different kinds of conservatism can get representation proportional to the people who ascribe to the different factions of conservatism and of liberalism. If we don't and we keep going the way we do, then all sorts of politicians will seek the endorsements of movements like the Tea Parties just to get their name out and get more people to vote for them, whether or not they really represent the interests of those movements.
 
Zyphlin said:
Could you point out what specific agenda items of the Tea Party movement is "not conservative"?
Click to expand...

Ron Paul's just throwing a hissy fit cause the Tea Party movement isn't falling in exactly as he believes they should. No deviation allowed.

The TP Movement is a fluid thing, and it moves as to the whims of those that cheer it on, that rally for it.
 
Dav said:
Gay marriage is pretty much the only issue where conservatives and libertarians consistently disagree. Maybe drugs too.

Everything else is more ambiguous. There are pro-life libertarians; Ron Paul is one of them. There are plenty of hawkish libertarians as well.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Yes, there are plenty of pro-life libertarians. I don't know of any truly hawkish libertarians though. The libertarian position on defense ranges between complete isolationism to non-interventionism. Either way, they see defense spending as a magnet for corruption in government.

Libertarians believe that your rights ultimately are based in the principle of self ownership and because you own you, your right to live your life extends so far as to not impede the ability of another individual to do the same. The notion that the rights of man stem from self ownership is incompatible with social and religious conservatism. In fact, its heretical to them.

Libertarians are strong proponents of a separation between church and state. That is a view that many conservatives do not share. Most libertarians believe that your constitutional protections extends to all levels of government. Many conservatives believe it largely only applies to the federal government. For example, its a fairly common conservative argument that the prohibition against the government promoting or enforcing religious beliefs only applies to the federal government. That is certainly not an argument you will hear too many libertarians make. Libertarians by and large agree with the positions of the ACLU, conservatives on the other hand despise them.

So when you get down to it, there is pretty big divide between conservatism in the United States and libertarianism in the U.S.
 
What I see here is a bunch of nit-pickers trying to find people like themselves. Ever heard the saying "Sometimes I think everybody is crazy but me and you and sometimes I wonder about you"?. At least the Tea Party goers are not trying to keep Obama in office.
 
Navy Pride said:
Wow, why don't you tell us how you really feel;) I knew I could get your goat but not like this........I will take a little time to digest this and unfortunately the Scotch on the Rocks are getting to me..........I will say that contrary to what you say there are a lot of people in here that are friends of mine and call themselves Conservatives and agree with me on most issues and vice versa..........We fight the good fight against radical liberalism every day because unlike you we believe it is a serious issue and could destroy this country....
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't have such little respect for this country that I think a few politicians are going to "Destroy" it.

I am sorry I don't meet your standards as a Conservative and you think I am a neo con but that could not be further from the truth...I just love to pull the strings of these Liberals and sometimes go a little overboard doing so.....The people that count here know that........
Click to expand...

And this actually proves my point, 100% Navy. You don't READ anything. You see a post, see a few words you disagree with, and then IMMEDIATELY begin to stereotype the person as "A liberal" and then just ASSUME what they're saying. The following quotes are from the above quotes

Zyphlin said:
Now, I don't agree with Dana, that somehow this is a vile beast that is wholey non-conservative.
Click to expand...

You are a conservative
Click to expand...

I disagree with Dana, that doesn't make you a conservative.
Click to expand...

Note, every single one of them is me saying YOU ARE A CONSERVATIVE. However, unlike you who mindlessly labels ANYONE that disagrees with you on something your "Left wing friend" or a "Phony Conservative" i understand that there are various variations of Conservatives, and I expressed my belief of what kind you are based on the things you actually say.

You are not the end all, be all, definitive example of a Conservative that if people don't follow 100% they're somehow a "liberal" despite your asinine and frankly rude constant use of "my left wing friend".

Mr. V, you're, Paul is annoyed that the Tea Party movement is seeming to move away from its roots to a more stereotypical "2000's republican" message. I'm equally annoyed. If it continues down that path I think the chance of it helping to balance the party and have the potential for sustained national success that is actually meaningful because its not just "Democrat Lite" is going to be reduced to nil. For a while this movement was a chance for a BALANCED Republican platform whose focus was on all conservatism, if not a bit more on fiscal and governmental, then typical dividing factors such as "OMG SOCIALIST" and "HE'S A NAZI" and social factors. It was likely to pull in people who wouldn't cause us to have to choose between "Horrible Spending, Constitution destroying Liberals or Slightly Less Horrible Spending, Constitution destroying Conservative". If it majorly continues down the trend of simply being molded into the typical "2000's republican" then yeah...I'll be extremely annoyed myself.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I disagree. Yes, there are plenty of pro-life libertarians. I don't know of any truly hawkish libertarians though.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough this is how my dad referenced himself for the longest time.

The libertarian position on defense ranges between complete isolationism to non-interventionism. Either way, they see defense spending as a magnet for corruption in government.
Click to expand...

I agree in a general sense, however like the other poster I've known Libertarians who believe in the general "Peace through Strength" philosophy and having a strong military, but disagree with using it in an interventionalist or policing sort of matter and generally are for less spending than your typical Republican but more than your standard libertarian.

Libertarians believe that your rights ultimately are based in the principle of self ownership and because you own you, your right to live your life extends so far as to not impede the ability of another individual to do the same. The notion that the rights of man stem from self ownership is incompatible with social and religious conservatism. In fact, its heretical to them.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you're going to argue WHERE rights come from I have seen as many libertarians, being the founder worshipers that they stereotypically are, agree with the founders notion along with self ownership. Going forward as well, while I would agree with you that libertarian conservatism finds itself at odds with religious conservatism on social issues due to the way in which religious conservatives seek to push their agenda I would say it does not necessarily conflict completely with social conservatism.

Look at Ron Paul's stance on abortion, believing its a state issue but at that point being against it and against federal funding for abortion things. Look at their views on immigration which is generally routed in social conservatism and typical is strong on securing of the borders. I wouldn't say its "incompatible" with normal social conservative, but they are generally at best not STRONG social conservatives.

Libertarians are strong proponents of a separation between church and state. That is a view that many conservatives do not share.
Click to expand...

This is gross stereotyping that really you have no real good indication for, especially because there's argument even within the Libertarian movement and the Republican movement as to what truly constitutes violations of church and state separation.

Most libertarians believe that your constitutional protections extends to all levels of government. Many conservatives believe it largely only applies to the federal government. For example, its a fairly common conservative argument that the prohibition against the government promoting or enforcing religious beliefs only applies to the federal government.
Click to expand...

How in the world is something you state so "Fairly common" something I've never once seen argued in my time here. Again, I think you're stereotyping, which is what you typically do whenever you can have a chance to insult republicans/conservatives, trying to make relatively more extreme notions out to be common, such as in the past when you tried to act that anything short of near anarchism would mean you're not really conservative.

That is certainly not an argument you will hear too many libertarians make. Libertarians by and large agree with the positions of the ACLU, conservatives on the other hand despise them.
Click to expand...

Again, I've seen very very few libertarians on this board and that I've known in life and in college actually "By and large" agree with the positions of the ACLU. I've seen then agree with them MORE so than conservatives, but you make it seem that they're almost always in lock step with them which has not been what I've seen personally.

So when you get down to it, there is pretty big divide between conservatism in the United States and libertarianism in the U.S.
Click to expand...

There is a larger one then the original poster seemed to imply, but not nearly as large of one that you try to show.

And I think the original poster really hit the nail on the head. This is not a black and white issue as you try to present it. There are a large variation of factions within the Libertarian contingent, and also within the standard Republican contingent. To try and stereotype it to greatly is a bit of a folly imho as I've found out of any political ideology Libertarians seem to have the most variations from member to member than either of the big two, possibly because so many people are driven to it more so out of disenchantment with one of the big two than because of a strong following of every part of the stereotypical philosophical ideology.
 
Zyphlin said:
Funnily enough this is how my dad referenced himself for the longest time.

I agree in a general sense, however like the other poster I've known Libertarians who believe in the general "Peace through Strength" philosophy and having a strong military, but disagree with using it in an interventionalist or policing sort of matter and generally are for less spending than your typical Republican but more than your standard libertarian.
Click to expand...

You do understand that far less spending on defense than a your typical Republican, but more than the standard libertarian, would put them closer to a liberal Democrats beliefs on defense spending, than a Republicans.

Actually, if you're going to argue WHERE rights come from I have seen as many libertarians, being the founder worshipers that they stereotypically are, agree with the founders notion along with self ownership.
Click to expand...

Many of the founders believed your rights were derived from self ownership. At its core, thats a classical liberal belief.

Going forward as well, while I would agree with you that libertarian conservatism finds itself at odds with religious conservatism on social issues due to the way in which religious conservatives seek to push their agenda I would say it does not necessarily conflict completely with social conservatism.

Look at Ron Paul's stance on abortion, believing its a state issue but at that point being against it and against federal funding for abortion things. Look at their views on immigration which is generally routed in social conservatism and typical is strong on securing of the borders. I wouldn't say its "incompatible" with normal social conservative, but they are generally at best not STRONG social conservatives.
Click to expand...

Social conservatives are not going to be cool with simply leaving moral issues up to the states. They have been pursuing the issues at a national level for 30 years now, its not as if they are just going to up and drop it. We are talking about the core moral and religious beliefs of people, they don't tend to change.

This is gross stereotyping that really you have no real good indication for, especially because there's argument even within the Libertarian movement and the Republican movement as to what truly constitutes violations of church and state separation.
Click to expand...

Its a fairly accurate statement that I made. The majority of libertarians believe that the state is bared from endorsing, promoting, or compelling adherence to religious beliefs. Thats a big difference from the majority conservative view that ranges between the state not being able to favor one religion over another on one end, and the separation of church and state only applying to the federal government on the other.

How in the world is something you state so "Fairly common" something I've never once seen argued in my time here.
Click to expand...

Anytime you have seen people on here argue that the federal judiciary is being activist when it tells a statehouse it can't put up a ten commandments monument, then you are seeing that argument in action. Similarly, anytime you see people on here argue that the federal judiciary is being activist when it strikes down a law at the state or local level as a violation of the right to privacy, then you are seeing that argument in action.

Again, I think you're stereotyping, which is what you typically do whenever you can have a chance to insult republicans/conservatives, trying to make relatively more extreme notions out to be common, such as in the past when you tried to act that anything short of near anarchism would mean you're not really conservative.
Click to expand...

When did I insult anyone in that post?

Again, I've seen very very few libertarians on this board and that I've known in life and in college actually "By and large" agree with the positions of the ACLU.
Click to expand...

The only beef I have ever known a libertarian to have with the ACLU was that the ACLU doesn't take up gun rights causes, and sometimes they involve themselves in affirmative action cases with libertarians see as unconstitutional.


There is a larger one then the original poster seemed to imply, but not nearly as large of one that you try to show.

And I think the original poster really hit the nail on the head. This is not a black and white issue as you try to present it. There are a large variation of factions within the Libertarian contingent, and also within the standard Republican contingent.
Click to expand...

Of course there are variations in terms of ideology with libertarians and republicans. There right leaning libertarians, left leaning libertarians, green libertarians and so on. Similarly, there the old Country Club Republicans, social conservatives, libertarian leaning Republicans, and though they are not usually very welcome in the party, moderate Republicans. What you seem to gloss over though is that there are some strong divisions, especially between the social / religious conservatives, and everyone else that is not a liberal Democrat, that prevents them all from becoming a workable coalition.
 
Last edited:
Hawkish libertarian: Instapundit

Anyways, SD, your views on what a conservative is is kind of odd. I wouldn't say that all of them don't advocate separation of church and state at all levels of government; in fact, I would bet that most of them do. I also think that many social conservatives - probably most, really - would be fine with leaving social issues to the state level.

And libertarians do sometimes disagree with conservatives when it comes to privacy and religious issues, but that is as ambiguous as I said everthing but drugs and gay marriage is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom