The small government hipocracy....

That's quiet true.

 

The OP himself did not attempt to make this distinction; so why are you? You are being dishonest. This is about what one ideology wishes over another.

I do not take responsibility for a Republican Party which does things with which I disagree - why the fock SHOULD I? I can defend Conservative thought; particularly my own.

You, however, aren't interested in hearing those thoughts. Instead, you are interested in dragging such individualistic thought and throwing it into a general and large box - a box with which you've had much experience bashing the past - so that you can continue to bash my particular ideas, and try again to fool yourself and others that you're actually making sense.

You're not.

You are talking to me right now. You are responding to me right now. If you cannot actually back up your accusation using my posts, your argument is facile, peurile and completely failed.

You are off topic. This is about what ideology SHOULD be in place, and I completely explained my position. Are you able to actually assail what I said?

Oh, really? Since you just tried to blast my post as though there wasn't a thing individualistic about it, and now - here - are whining about me not taking your post for its individual merit, I'm supposed to be worried about missing a boat?

Back up and stop being a hypocrite if you don't want to feel my boot.

 

Yeah, I'm a libertarian leaning independent, and I don't like the left either, but the right is far worse. They ignore the one guy who could fix this mess, Ron Paul, and they're even more big government than the left. At least the left tells you they want big gov. The right yells small gov until they're blue in the face, it's laughable.

 

Your position is partisan, and pointless - and I'm going to prove it.

How well would Ron Paul do running as a Democrat?

 

Thanks

Great avatar btw.

 

It's actually a bit of a paradox.

Conservatives mostly support smaller federal government -- with the exception of the military.

However, the emphasis on states' rights essentially creates a situation much like the one involving a stronger federal government.

During the Civil Rights Movement, social conservatives used the states' rights argument for preventing federal intervention in the implementation of integration.

Jim Crow laws showed us what happens when local power is unchecked by the feds with respect to the preservation of rights. The same mob rule that conservatives fear from federal power can be present in state and local governance.

So, ultimately, a certain level of "big" government is needed to preserve the rights of minorities. States' rights have to be put in check sometimes by federal standards, so as to prevent abuse of power on local levels.

In either case, liberals and conservatives deal with priorities that involve control over others.

Liberals go too far by supporting nanny state policies, while conservatives go too far by supporting laws that oppress minorities.

 

"Some government" usually meaning things like breaking up protests, searching people who wish to board aircraft, or are just walking down the street late at night looking suspicious (you know, looking minority), wireless wire taps, secret courts, torture, secret lists, preemptive wars, fighting drugs, jailing 1 in every 31 adults, you know just the 'small' things, not things like welfare, or healthcare or things that while not a proper use of tax dollars at least help people. Yeah no republicans are great moral people who truly believe in small government

 

Lady justice and Lady liberty should always be this close, if not closer

 

Huh? Neither like him because both parties love big gov, and he's against that. The left would like him better because of his views on civil liberties and foreign policy, but would hate his economic policy.

Not sure what you're driving at.

 

Bingo, you got him.

 

I'm confused as well though I've heard a couple of democrats in Portland say they'd vote for Paul over Obama because he seems more likely to deliver. This is a minority of Democrats I'm sure but I've heard more of them IRL in bars saying they'd vote for Ron Paul than heard the same from Republicans both in bars and on this forum.

 

I'm going to start calling you on your bubble-headed 'points', one by one, starting with this one.

Find me a protest that gets broken up by "small government" types, just for the sake of breaking it up. Your nonsense is just that: nonsense. OWS protests have been given every latitude, and are only 'broken up' when they BREAK THE LAW.

And they're often broken up by DEMOCRATS. Or did you forget who broke up the protests in Oakland, as an example?

I'm against expansion of TSA and Homeland Security power that results in this nonsense. But Obama...isn't. Who's small Government, again? How about you actually focus on actual examples?

Really? And you can provide me statistically meaningful evidence that this isn't just cops being thuggish, regardless of their personal political ideology? Like my buddy was pulled over a week ago after he was walking home from the bars...because he was "looking suspicious"? Like no black cop actually does this?

Back your crap. I'm not going to allow you to psychologically cement your partisan misconceptions just because you like to parrot bullsh!t.

BOTH parties support this. The Patriot Act continues, and Obama ensured it! Obama actually had an American citizen killed without due process! You throw generalities around, but you - somehow - filter out leftists. Dishonest nonsense.

You did it too. This is about Conservatives. Don't try to pull BS and throw all Conservatives in with Republicans who do stupid things.

 

What I'm driving at is that you found your voice just fine trying to bash Republicans far more than Democrats, but I'm here to tell you FOR A FACT that Ron Paul has remained one of the top 4 Republican candidates for one major reason:

The Republican Party is more tolerant of Ron Paul than is the Democrat Party. Paul would not have lasted this long running as a Democrat candidate.

It means that your ire should be EXACTLY SPLIT DOWN THE MIDDLE at these parties - not GOP more than DEM.

Regardless: OP tried to cite 'far right'. Not "Republicans". Yet you all seem just so earnestly devoted into throwing them all into one big pot, as if they could be legitimately represented in that way.

They can't.

There is a war going on in the Republican Party precisely because they can't.

 

This always makes my day... does no one see the irony in calling it a "liberal" agenda?

+1 as well... Though I'm not interested in right or left at all, it seems that essentially anyone in politics who identifies strongly with one wing or the other is ultimately obsessed with fascism... after all what good is it to have religious convictions if you can't "inquisition" and "crusade" the **** out of the heretics?

 

Do conservatives support laws preventing people from protesting on public land?

Do they support those protests lasting for a period of time? How long? Over night? Days? Weeks?

Do they support people being able to protest without the need to get a permit?

I think you'll find these answers most dissatisfying if you like freedom.

So because Obama isn't against this expansion that means Republicans are even though they help it and, like the majority of the nation, defend it?

Why does the color of the cop matter? Fact is minorites are stopped on a more frequent basis. Hell just walking down the street can get you harrassed. I'm white, so we'll clear that up, and was walking to my house from a 7-11 5 blocks away. Cops pulled up beside me and followed me. I saw them out of the corner of my eye but ignored them. They hit the brakes, turned right down the block after a crossed the street. Being that I'd had to deal with these (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s before, I already knew what was going to happen. Low and behold as I prepare to cross the next street the cops come screaming down the street lights blazing and stop me right infront of my house. Luckily I had my military ID on me at the time (I was on leave) so rather than get searched and harrassed for 30 minutes as was the standard, I was let go after 5.

That's the kind of enforcement conservatives love; people being stopped and searched for no reason.

Doesn't matter if both parties support this, the one that claims to be small government most certainly should not!

Does the Republican party not label itself conservative? Are Republicans in general not refereed to as conservatives? Do people who vote for the republican party label themselves conservatives? Sorry, but you get known by the biggest representation of you, which is the Republican party. Just to be clear I know not all conservatives are republicans, and that's why I specifically said 'republican' rather than conservative.

 

The Republican party is trying their best to make Ron Paul go away, whether it's the MSM ignoring him or the shenanigans going on with all the voter fraud.

And all I was saying about the Republican party vs the Democrat party is that the Republican party is more big gov, which is absolutely true.

 

You are obviously not going to give specifics, and the specifics need to be known (for instance: a person cannot blast music from the private property, and not expect to be shut down, even though it's happening on their "private land").

So let's see how you do here...

What? Which Conservative supports this? Give specifics.

Depends. Are you so bubble-headed that you think it's just fine that your neighbor do whatever he wants - for as long as he wants - and you should not have any say whatsoever?

Do liberals? What is your point? Society demands moral protocol. What is your point? Specifics.

I think you'll find my answers most dissatisfying if you dislike sanity. Go ahead: get specific. I'll bet you'll be made to look like a fool in the process. You're welcome to try.

Write that in English, and try it again. Obama is in favor of this expansion, while you're busying crying about Republicans. Your squeal is PARTISAN. I'm against ANYONE who wants to expand these powers. You're...PARTISAN.

Um...because you're the one who brought up the minorities as - somehow - being the only one who is the victim, and none which is the perpetrator. You did this to - again - try to solely target people of one ideology.

Unfairly. I'm telling you that all SORTS of people on BOTH sides do this, and it's wrong throughout.

But you aren't interested in that. You're interested in punishing one particular ideological group.

You just tried to whine about minorities being stopped by offering an example of a white guy being stopped? After I too offered an example?

You should get better at offering examples. Yours...sucked. Cops are conditioned to ferret out suspicious behaviour. Many cops are power-hungry thugs. We know this. We don't need a stupid post about it.

There you go again. That's an ASININE statement. I'm a Conservative, and I hate this type of thing. Now where are you? You're back where I asked you before: PROVE YOUR STUPID ASS ASSERTION.

Individuals claim to be small-government. I have seen no party claim this, and I have most definitely not seen a party do it. I am a Conservative. I do not support big Government. It is from this basis that I formed my objection to the OP. I am, after all 'far-right'.

Do you have anything valuable to offer wrt to my criticism of the OP? No? Then I suggest you retreat.

Hell no. The Republican Party? There's a war going on in the Republican Party between true Conservatives, and those who are not.

Sure! By the likes of those who wish to sully the notion of Conservativism with the dirty laundry of those who aren't. Why do you think the TEA Party had such success throwing out liberal Republicans, and replacing them with more Conservative people?

People who then became the target of much of the Republican establishment?

Every one of them? What kind of stupid comment is this?

That is the fallacy of Collectivism, and the narrow conscript of a two-party system, and you should be ashamed of yourself. This isn't groupism, and your own ideology - purportedly Libertarian - should know better than that.

And that's why I specifically said Conservative instead of Republican - and even went farther: I SAID MY CONSERVATISM.

But you insist upon trying to drag me into a group, and defend stupidity. You should be ashamed.

 

You'll have to do better with the voter fraud charge. I'm a Ron Paul supporter. The Republican Party is schismed between big government business as usual types, and those who really want to change things for the better.

And I do believe that there are massive strings pulled in the background by some force (who, I don't really know), who seems to have power over BOTH parties.

No, that's nonsense. At least the Republicans throw tax cuts out once in a while. That alone qualifies them for a less egregious position than the Democrats, as tax increases worsen dependence and the size of Government.

 

Sure, they throw in tax cuts from time to time. They also throw in the war on drugs, the war on gays, police state, and imperialist foreign policy.

Their is support among a lot of republican voters for a guy like Ron Paul however, the party is made up of Neocon big gov politicians.

 

I am radical and I don't consider myself dangerous for freedom. It is more, for example here I am the one that more has defended the freedom or one of them.

 

The patriot act has done more harm to our liberties than any communist country ever has.

While both democrats and republicans (*)(*)(*)(*) on each other over who loves bigger government more. They are giving a nice 1-2 combo to knock out this experiment that is the USA. United we stand and divided we fall.

 

I'm being pretty specific about the items. Simply because I'm not going through full events doesn't mean what I'm saying is so general it cannot be understood.

I meant republicans. Again, them being the face of conservatism, they are who I'm addressing. Actual small government conservatives like myself don't believe in his horse (*)(*)(*)(*).

If he's protesting something I don't see the problem. I'm talking about public land but on private land certainly so long as he's not harming you what's the problem?

Get specific about what? I've been quiet clear. You're just trying to start some left/right fight over nothing with someone who isn't even a leftist to begin with.

I'd have to support the Democrats to be partisan wouldn't I? Point is Republicans say they are for small government yet their actions tell otherwise. Democrats say they are big government and indeed are big government. If the Democrats said they were for small government yet loved big government much like the Republicans do I would hold them to the fire as well, but they're not. When people say they represent my values but clearly do not give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about my values, I call them out. There is nothing partisan about it.

Yes I'm interested in punishing racists for performing race based actions on the behalf of the government regardless of race.

So walking down the street is suspicious behavior now? I see someone walking down the street now, should I alert the authorities?

Why don't you try looking at the other conservatives on this forum. They are why I no longer identify myself as conservative but rather classical liberal. The republican right is insane. If you need more information look up things like Maricopa country, you know where Sheriff Arpaio keeps getting re-elected. Which party is on the side of torturing people? Which side is always trying to be 'tough on crime'. Which side supports the death penalty. I could keep going.

Actually small government is part of the Republican platform, that's why they bring it up all the time.

What?

You say that but I don't see it. The fact that Ron Paul was shot down and religious zealots like Santorum and Perry were propped up tells me they still don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about libertarians, at all. I don't see that changing. With any luck this is the death-throws of social conservatism and we will see a libertarian rise in the party, hell I might even go back if that happens, but I doubt it.

Yes, socially conservative people. Once Ron Paul is gone I don't think we'll have a good conservative representative in government. The republicans care more about religion than they do anything else.

It was a question not a comment.

The only reason I'm ashamed to call the Republicans the major represntation of this nations conservatives is because it's true. Not my fault the party is garbage.

Why?

 

You aren't being specific at all! Why are you unwilling to offer specifics? In fact, my example of blaring music on your own property still being restricted is an example of specificity. You've offered nothing like that.

No. Your claim is flatly rejected. The GOP is not "the fact of conservatism". The TEA Party, in fact, is far more representative.

Regardless: you keep trying to bait and switch. My comments - which you chose to assail - directly and exclusively referenced Conservative ideals in general, and my Conservative ideals in specific.

You are no small Government Conservative. You may be a small Government Libertarian - but there is no way you're a Conservative. I know this because I'm a small-Government Conservative, and I disagree with your statements on a regular basis.

You have still only spoken in generality. You think you're speaking in specifics, but you're not. Reference a specific example.

Protestors that become a public nuisance certainly should have limits imposed upon them. It is the very reason that so many OWS protests got in trouble. What you do on private property still has restrictions. That should be obvious.

*sigh*

I'm asking you to get specific because the devil is in the details - and I'm asking you to be specific because absolutist proclamations of what should and should not be allowed isn't sufficient - as my example of blaring a radio on private property should have illustrated.

Partisanship is attempting to impugn one side of a political spectrum while avoiding doing the same to the other side - as you did. It is obvious that both sides are guilty about that which you're complaining.

You chose to argue with ME. I never said a THING to disagree with this statement. You chose to take issue with my statement, even though my statement references critique of the OP for obvious reasons.

And none of them have anything to do with any redeeming qualities of the Republican Party. They have to do with Conservative ideology, and my own Conservativism.

Meaningless. The OP was about liberals - and his claim looking to deflect blame for which liberals should be at least as culpable. Our entire society is infected with the Nanny-Statism of liberalism; the latest example in queue being Obama trying to force self-insured private religious institutions to provide a service with which they disagree: birth control.

UnConstitutional social enforcement of liberal mores. But the OP ignored this offense, as have you.

The reason your claim is hollow here is that you didn't unload on the OP at all regarding his hypocritical ignorance of liberal ideological intrusion, and you still haven't. You're moving the goal-posts, and you're attempting to lump me into a Republican Party. If you want to attack Republicans, go for it.

But don't do it in responses to my posts which attempt to insinuate my beliefs with that aspect of the Republican party with which you take issue.

Because I take issue as well.

But - apparently - not regardless of political affiliation. You've found your voice only wrt to perpetrators who are Republican. That's why I'm firing back at you.

Cripes.

If there was a report of someone having committed a crime, and the perp fits a description, some people are going to be stopped, while walking down the street. There is clearly a line which is crossed with regularity, and I've already explained that I think a whole lot of cops are thug bullies who go into the field having those character traits already well seasoned. What more do you want, here?

If you're allfire worried about blacks - for instance - being "unfairly" targetted, why don't you lobby the black community, which doesn't do a focking thing to suppress crime within their own neighborhoods? If blacks do not wish to be "unfairly" targeted, perhaps they should stop being responsible for a disproportionate percentage of crime.

Okay, you just exposed yourself. In the very post I'm responding to here, you claimed to call yourself a Conservative. You just retracted your own characterization, not 1000 words later. Hypocrisy.

Second, I've asked YOU to PROVE YOUR ASSERTION. It is YOUR job to substantiate your claim; not me. If you cannot, you can RETRACT it. Most Conservatives in this forum agree with me nearly ALWAYS.

So PROVE it.

This is just a stupid unsubstantiated rant. You are no conservative, nor are you a "classical liberal". You are - at best - a moderate Libertarian.

And you cannot even be consistent regarding what you call yourself.

It's funny that you can say something which is true, but completely misrepresent the point at the same time.

There are two aspects to the Republican Party - and it is the core of the war going on for control with the Party: there is the aspect which gives lip-service to small Government, and legislates in a completely different way, and there is an aspect (TEA) which MEANS it.

Your failure to recognize this and acknowledge it is aggravating: it's obvious.

*sigh*

You chose to take issue with my post by going off on tangents you attempt to insinuate me into, but with which I had nothing to do. I suggest you revisit my post, and see if you can find fault in it. All your responses were non sequitur: they were about things I didn't say; didn't mention, and don't believe.

This is a ridiculously obtuse POV. You act as though this war I'm describing is actually evenly balanced. It's obvious that the power-brokers in the GOP are the big-Government types. It's the lesser junior Senators and newly minted Representatives which are bringing the fight, and will only win the fight with continued support at the grass-roots level.

This too is obvious.

 

Your comments are getting very aggravating. If that were the case, someone like Santorum would be walking away with the GOP nomination, and he isn't. Each candidate has weaknesses.

Ron Paul's is that he's done an absolutely miserable job explaining what should be the proper approach and reaction to overseas threats to our country and ideology. He looks completely overmatched in this regard, and is an absolute failure when it comes to providing a convincing narrative to win over voters who are desperate for his domestic policy, but just can't past the danger they believe he represents to our overall security in this era of a shrunken globe.

Romney remains on top because he's a winner in pretty much everything he's attempted. He looks the part; he sounds the part, and the other candidates keep putting their feet in their mouths - and he cannot close the deal because too many people aren't sure if they can trust that what he says is what he means.

It didn't assist it in becoming any less stupid.

And you're supposed to be thinking I'm disagreeing with you? Your complaint of garbage should be AT LEAST equally applied to Democrats, who suck FAR WORSE.

And you do this "it's garbage" thing while completely ignoring the young aspects of the GOP which are trying to take control of it and turn it into a truly small government party. Despite the corruption to fight such change.

BECAUSE I'm NOT A REPUBLICAN, #$(#&. I'm a small-Government CONSERVATIVE.

 

Tell that too the millions killed all due too leftist ideology.