Conservative double standards

You just thought of this? Really? This is not isolated. Conservatives take the big government and anti-free market position ALL THE TIME!! Those aren't principles. They are platitudes meant to support an alternative agenda. The conservative position on immigration is pro-big government and anti-free market. The conservative "strong on crime" position is a pro-big government position. The conservative position on drug laws is the pro-big government position. The conservative position on defense issues and anti-terrorism issues is the most pro-big government position anyone can take. That is just the tip of the iceberg. Conservatives love big government. They just want government to do the things they like and support, and not to do the things they don't like and don't support. However, "I want government to be small when I believe it is appropriate and large when I believe it is appropriate" doesn't focus group as well or fit on a bumper sticker as well, so they lie and say that they support smaller government!! People just support that viscerally, so it gets votes, even when practically they don't support the principle at all.

 

If you mean the term as it is used in most other countries, then absolutely. However, there is very little left wing about Obama. He is a corporatist centrist and would be at best center right in most other developed nations.

 

I consider myself a small-government conservative. My stance on same-sex marriage is that I don't think government should play a role AT ALL. Government should treat individuals as individuals and abandon ALL reach into the marriage business. Marriage should be treated, under the law, as a contractual agreement between consenting individuals. Marriage in the eyes of god should be handled by the church consistent with the church's beliefs. The church's blessings should have NO legal standing, just as the legal joining of individuals should not imply a path to heaven. If, on the other hand, gay people want to use the government to force the CHURCH to recognize their union, then that's a different issue.

I, like the OP, cannot reconcile a SINGLE conservative being both a proponent of small government, AND being against the personal liberty in choosing one's mate.

Government's prime directive, in my utopia, would be to ensure a LEVEL playing field for every individual, small business, and corporation, and to provide for the defense of the country and the security of the citizenry.

 

Those are the easy low hanging fruit, how about regulations on food or water or medicines. How about banking? How about airplane safety or air traffic controllers?

You see we live in the 21sf century and our government needs to reflect that .

 

Because of his expansionary war efforts? No, I don't think he's liberal on that front.

 

but he's still a liberal

 

except that he's pro abortion, pro gay marriage, pro amnesty, pro wealth redistribution, pro raising taxes, pro big government etc etc etc

 

I just thought of it in regards to same-sex marriage, yes. I'd come to the conclusion on other things long ago, but I wanted to point out the double standard that just so happens to be pretty obvious with some of the Conservatives on PF.

I said many conservatives, not most or all conservatives. I know there are many conservatives that actually think government shouldn't be in the marriage business. So your grading gets an F.

The problem is, a lot of people use theologically-based arguments to support their arguments when other religions aren't as hositle, or are even welcoming of homosexual relationships, therefore there is a religious-based argument for same-sex marriage.

Plus there are many benefits that go beyond procreation that have nothing to do with procreation that are granted to married couples, such as marital privilege, lower estate taxes, and over a thousand other benefits that are jeopardized if marriage is not considered "marriage".

I don't care what anyone hears in church, but there's no reason that those beliefs from church should translate into laws for a secular society.

 

The right loves big government too, otherwise he has done almost nothing legislatively to promote any of those ideas. Gay marriage has spread with no help to him. In fact, for most of his first term he didn't even come out as explicitly in favor of gay marriage. Passed no amnesty bill. Extended the Bush tax cut once. And raising taxes is not explicitly left wing anyways. It can be quite conservative, if it is meant to be fiscally responsible. It is simply NOT in keeping with modern day American right wing religious beliefs in the tax cut Panacea. In what way has he substantively redistributed wealth, except in the direction of the wealthy (answer, he hasn't)? So I understand how the straw man of Obama many on the right have created is liberal, but the actual Obama is a corporatist centrist.

 

right at first he was against it then he changed his mind when he needed votes. now he has taken the liberal stance and is pro gay marriage.
[video=youtube;z0PUUpa5X4E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0PUUpa5X4E[/video]
[video=youtube;TB1dG1Bg1xM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB1dG1Bg1xM[/video]
[video=youtube;UsapJii1rMY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsapJii1rMY[/video]
[video=youtube;cvGsWQ69Tzk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvGsWQ69Tzk[/video]

 

He can say whatever he wants. He also said he was going to close Guantanamo and campaigned in opposition to a healthcare mandate. Politicians say a lot of things. Obama had a year of a supermajority in the Senate and an overwhelming majority in the house. If he actually wanted those things, he would have made them happen. What he actually does is says things from time to time to placate the base, so that they don't rebel. Same way the Republican establishment pretends to care about abortion and gay marriage. The reality is both parties care about the same thing. To enrich their wealth benefactors even further, so they will continue to use their money to get them reelected.

 

right because we all know what he says he believes and what he can get away with are always the exact same thing

 

(1) The Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) are hardly "welcoming" of homosexuality; and these are the dominant religions in America (not Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism).

(2)These are the facts:

Marriage, as it has traditionally been understood in America, is all about the union of one man and one woman. Utah--which is largely populated by Mormons--had some difficulty gaining membership to the Union; so the Church of Latter Day Saints (LDS) banned the practice of polygamy in 1890, and Utah was subsequently admitted.

Please note that there are actually two components to this understanding of marriage: (1) It is to be comprised of exactly two people; and (2) one is to be a man, and the other a woman.

To declare that one portion of this formula is subject to change, whereas the other is inviolate, would surely be arbitrary and capricious.

Therefore, there is really no good way to say that marriage should not be limited to those of opposite genders, but that it should prohibit polygymy (or its analogue, polyandry).

In short, this change would logically open the door to yet another major change in the definition of marriage; and that, notwithstanding the protestations of those who deeply desire same-sex marriage.

This amounts to a plea for marriage as a function of the state; whereas I see it exclusively as a sacrament of religious institutions,,,

 

Which brings us back to the op which accuses conservatives of being intrusive----but here we are-- non-conservative want to ignore the Constitution and make Federal government intrusive and powerful---because according to them.....we now live in the 21st century.

 

So just because it's a Judeo-Chrisitan majority in the United States, other religions cannot be respected. I've never read that in the First Amendment.

Yeah yeah yeah, and up until 1865, blacks were considered property.

"Some difficulty" ? They were unconditionally bared from being admitted to the Union until they abolished polygamy. That flies in the face of the entire First Amendment and had they fought it in the Supreme Court, the federal government would have been laughed out of the courtroom. Utah spent almost a half-century as a territory because of the unconstitutional actions of the Federal Government.

"This understanding of marriage", thus there are other meanings. Other meanings of "marriage" must also be allowed per the Fourteenth Amendment.

No part of that definition is concrete.

I'm pro-SSM and pro-polygamy. Polyamorous relationships exist (I knew three people who were in such an arrangement all of their own free will. I don't think I would partake in such an arrangement for logistical reasons, but that doesn't mean that I don't support those that do wish to partake in such arrangements.

So be it, marriage equality means all marriages are equal, one man and one woman, two men, two women, one man and two women, two men and one woman, there is no difference to me.

When benefits not related to religion are provided for a religious sacrament, then that sacrament ceases to be a purely religious matter. Once secularism enters the picture, the religious definition cannot be used in a secular manner.

Notice, I am not saying that religious authorities must respect a same-sex marriage or must perform them, all I am saying is that a state must broaden its laws unless they can demonstrate reasons adequate enough to satisfy strict scrutiny as to why such institutions must be limited.

 

Oh, they own both sides. I'm not denying that. I'm just saying that Republicans are always the first ones to take the bribes. Your list confirms kinda supports it, I think. But you're right, the dems are no better at avoiding the corruption. My point was that Republicans EXCLUSIVELY represent the richest of the rich, and absolutely NOBODY else. If it doesn't have a large dollar sign in front of it, Republicans aren't interested. Democrats will occasionally 'lend an ear'. Republicans just take the cash and give you the finger.

 

No matter how many times you say that, it is simply not true. You don't seem to grasp that republicans in rural districts might side with others on the tax issues, especially the estate tax issue, because a lot of farmers are land rich and cash poor.

 

Well, can you give me three examples indicating what group of people Republicans represent? Can you give me ONE?

 

your usual blindness is showing all too clearly. it is the state which represents the wealthy, because they can afford to rule when the powers of the state are up for sale. i know you'd like to believe the populist rhetoric of the democrats, but surely you must have seen through at least some of it by now. what you don't like about the republicans is that they are willing, at least on those few occasions when politicians are being something close to honest, to tell you that you are actually going to have to work for your keep. while the democrats let you whine on and on about the unfairness of the world and hand you scapegoats to blame for your failures, the few conservative voices in government force you to face reality. they will tell you that life isn't fair, that it's hard work to be an adult and that failure is always an option to be overcome on a personal level.

 

Define 'work'. Is money manipulation 'work'? Is outsourcing 'work"? You see, if it is, then, that's the kind of 'work' that most people do and so, perhaps you could clarify what 'work' actually is, then we'll proceed?

 

The people who elect them, especially in districts that are safe red seats.

 

States could do 1/2 the work the federal govt does with a lot less people, saving everyone a lot of money. The federal govt was never supposed to have as much power as it does. Protect our borders, prevent corruption on every level, step in during disasters and keep the overall financial and social peace, upholding laws, not regulating every fiber of our beings. Thats all they should really be doing.

 

of course risk is work. those funds had to come from somewhere and risking them or persuading others to risk them is work. i know you'll probably start whining about rich kids or head off on some diatribe about the downtrodden working class, but that's just more of your envy showing through. with risk there is the option of failure and the consequences of loss.

perhaps you're one of those who has never risked anything, preferring to play it safe and comfortable. there's no shame in that, unless you start this incessant whining about the successes of those who did engage in risk.

 

So, moving around money is 'work'. Fair enough.

I've never had piles of cash to 'move around' so, I don't know what that's like (nor will I ever likely know it, nor will the bulk of average people know it). But, IF I could get my hands on a large pile of cash, and I 'successfully' moved it around enough to grow it, you would consider me a 'hard worker'? Let's say, I hit the lottery, I hand my cash over to some genius money manager, and it successfully grows, would you still consider me a 'hard worker'? I'm trying to gauge what it is and who it is you consider worthy of being considered someone who 'worked hard' for their fortunes, so, help me out, if you can.

 

why not include the vague possibility of walking down the street one day, stumbling over a suitcase full of cash and, after no one claims it, finding yourself in possession of a fortune? do you want me to admit to the element of chance? of course chance is involved in our everyday lives. a bit of dumb luck never hurt anyone.

back to your previous post. would you be a "hard worker"? not necessarily a "hard worker", but you would have embraced the risk, possibly even paying someone to mitigate that risk, and would be deserving of the rewards. most of us never will be in a position to take the big risks, but that doesn't reduce their importance or the consequences of failure.

but now back to that suitcase... just what do you think should be done with that windfall? should it be spread out to everyone within a city block? within a mile? how about giving twenty cents to everyone you meet until it's all used up? or would you think it fair to keep that money all to yourself to use as you saw fit?