The Paddock

The only thing you're way ahead of me on is in the dumb twat category. Now I see why that one dude thought the best policy was just to not talk to you. You're like a spoiled child.

You guys came up with the patriot act right? Just checking. And just for an example how would something like universal health care infringe on your individual liberty? How does letting the temporary Bush tax cuts on the richest of the rich expire stomp on your individual liberty?

Wow.

I'm not going to play that game. You know exactly who did it. I say the name. You say he isn't a conservative, even though he is, and so on.

So the man who expanded senior prescription drug care and implemented the patriot act is a conservative. Sure he was.

This where you and I will disagree to a large extent. Many of the people you label as a conservative, I do not. Although I am a Christian, I don't consider someone who wants to limit people's Constitutional liberty based on religous belief to be conservative. But if that is how you define conservative, then I will accept your critisism of those so called "conservatives". However, the number of people affected by those things are dwarfed by the number of people whose liberty is lost through government expansion.

In your example of the college student, he or she, does not have more liberty by attending college. He, or she, may have more opportunity, but a college graduate has the same liberty as a high school graduate. Furthermore, while your example is probably one of the more benign encroachments of government, the underlying truth is that it is not appropriate to enhance someones liberty at the expense of someone elses liberty. When government puts itself in that situation, no one has liberty because government is choosing the winners and losers. If one believes in liberty, one has to be willing to accept the results of free people doing what is in their best interest as they see it.

I doubt that Franklin would be impressed with the New Deal. Franklin was very concerned about the power of government and the fact that people would hand over their freedoms during a crisis. Obviously, running a government involves a lot of compromise and practicality. No one is saying otherwise. I just find it amusing that the same people who push for government control and subsidization at every turn wants to tout themselves as the preservers of liberty.

Based on every research I've seen on the topic, conservatives donate a higher percentage of their pay to help the poor than do liberals. I have nothing against old people getting medicine. I do have something against forcing other people to pay for their medicine without consent. I would gladly support charities whose mission is to ensure the elderly get their meds if they can't afford them. The two concepts (having heart and government forced subsidy) have nothing to do with each other. This kind of juvenile insinuation is why its difficult to have a conversation with liberals such as yourself.

It's funny you accuse me of crying when you went to every mod that would listen crying about me being some other guy that owned you. Crying to them with your paranoid delusions. I don't have welfare or any government money. I work. Do you?

Cat in the hat... +1 for every thing you posted. It's great to have you join us. However, you are wasting your time (like myself, Cobby and a few others), because those on the "Liberal" left will never get it. They've been brainwashed.

They only know what Obama, Al Gore, Al Sharpton, Bill Maher, Michael Moore, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, CNN and MSNBC tells them. Not to mention, their liberal friends in Hollywood... they are super-cool movie celebs, so they MUST be very intelligent, know what they are talking about and ALWAYS telling the truth. SMDH

I feel so sorry for them...it's impossible to despise them. (the misled, liberal sheep I mean) Not the liberal politicians who know exactly what they are doing and what lies they are telling... I still despise them.

I think it's that you don't like today's liberals and don't want to say that you and your pals and the founding fathers are/were indeed liberals.

Behavioral control is conservatism. I agree these aren't particularly big deals because we live in a very free society, but it's the local issues where you get to see the real orientation of the mindsets of your friends and acquaintances.

You must recognize that your position doesn't have much purchase in the political mainstream. I would submit it never has aside from the theoretical discussions that preceded the foundation of our country. As mentioned before, when actual governance started, theory was sacrificed for practicality.

Your characterization of the loss of liberty pretty much boils down to taxes. You don't think you should pay them, or as much of them. I don't mind so much because I think we all benefit from taxing and spending. It makes the economy bigger, it makes more people participants, and it gives me more of a chance to make more money--the difference being much more than I what I sacrifice to taxes. I like to think that some social programs, like educational ones, have exponential benefits. I know some are just dollar for dollar transfers, but it all greases the wheel.

America before the New Deal was a great country, but with lots of problems--huge inequality, erratic economy, etc. America after the New Deal became the greatest country ever with unprecedented economic expansion, boundless opportunity and peerless international influence. I'm not saying these things were the result of the New Deal, but they coincided with the move to bigger government. That's the country we all have always lived in and that most of us love. That other country might be a nice place, but it's all back to theory.

I agree that our founding fathers back then were considered Liberals but the current Liberals are NOTHING like our founding fathers. Current day Conservatism is much closer to our founding fathers while the modern Liberals are much closer to Communist/Marxist.

You don't see 'Conservatives' pushing for a one world government or massive universal programs as that is all the mantra of the current day Liberals.

When a liberal ask how any particular program affects us as an individual that's just a stupid argument. It may not affect me on a personal level due to a variety of reasons. That it affects anyone in a negative way while blatantly transfering wealth or restricting anothers freedom who may be of higher means doesn't mean it's just. How can you say that because person X makes more money than person Y that X owes money to Y? And if that is the case merely because of means, then shouldn't person Y also owe something to X? Why should one person owe another person merely for existing while the other owes nothing? IF you truly believe in fairness either you both owe each other something or you owe each other nothing. I think the only thing we owe each other is opportunity and the promise that we will strive to do our best.

I'm not sure what your first sentence even means, so I can't respond to your first point.

The tax issue is quite simple really. People shouldn't pay for anything based on how much money they make. There are not different prices for cars, clothes, food, etc., based on how much money a person makes. When you purchase anything, aside from any negociations that might take place, we all pay the prevailing market price. Taxes are nothing more than paying your share of the cost of government. It should be no different. Now from a practical matter, we can't get there from where we are today. But I do believe that everybody should pay something. When a person pays no income taxes, there is no checks and balances with government spending because the people who don't pay simply push that burden on the rest of us. If everbody pays something, then as government spending rises, it impacts all of us, not just the upper 50%. This serves as a check against government spending. So as matter of fairness and as a practical matter of having checks and balances against government spending, I think it is important that everyone have skin in the game.

Your missing the point on donations. Conservatives donate a higher percentage of their pay than liberals. So conservatives in the same income bracket as liberals donate a higher percentage of their income to charity.