(03-12-2019, 10:39 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]Only the non-curious and grossly inattentive are incapable of realizing that, with our record level of tax receipts, our unsustainable level of spending is getting to the point of threatening our national sovereignty.
I guess the President shouldn't be pushing the highest-spending budget in US history then, huh?
(03-13-2019, 01:50 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (03-12-2019, 10:39 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]Only the non-curious and grossly inattentive are incapable of realizing that, with our record level of tax receipts, our unsustainable level of spending is getting to the point of threatening our national sovereignty.
I guess the President shouldn't be pushing the highest-spending budget in US history then, huh?
It doesn't count when politicians he likes do it, because of reasons like ___, and such as ____.
U believe conservatism is about preserving the status quo. I believe and I would argue rightly that conservatism is about preserving individual liberty and the principles there of.
As to spending, through the miracle of entitlements and baseline budgeting every progressive budget will be higher than the next. I think that we should address that and I'm not happy that were at these levels but 1.) There were deep cuts to non defense spending in the executive departments and 2.) It's the most conservative administration in 3 decades. Give him till his second term.
(03-13-2019, 02:46 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]U believe conservatism is about preserving the status quo. I believe and I would argue rightly that conservatism is about preserving individual liberty and the principles there of.
As to spending, through the miracle of entitlements and baseline budgeting every progressive budget will be higher than the next. I think that we should address that and I'm not happy that were at these levels but 1.) There were deep cuts to non defense spending in the executive departments and 2.) It's the most conservative administration in 3 decades. Give him till his second term.
No. The status quo can't be preserved. Everything changes, always. And aspects of the status quo are bad anyhow.
Part of both conservatism and liberalism inovlves defining what is good and what is bad. That can be discussed at some other time.
But an essential feature of conservatism is taking small and deliberate steps with regard to both preserving what is good about the status quo and fixing what is bad about it.
(03-13-2019, 03:11 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2019, 02:46 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]U believe conservatism is about preserving the status quo. I believe and I would argue rightly that conservatism is about preserving individual liberty and the principles there of.
As to spending, through the miracle of entitlements and baseline budgeting every progressive budget will be higher than the next. I think that we should address that and I'm not happy that were at these levels but 1.) There were deep cuts to non defense spending in the executive departments and 2.) It's the most conservative administration in 3 decades. Give him till his second term.
No. The status quo can't be preserved. Everything changes, always. And aspects of the status quo bad anyhow.
Part of both conservatism and liberalism inovlves defining what is good and what is bad. That can be discussed at some other time.
But an essential feature of conservatism is taking small and deliberate steps with regard to both preserving what is good about the status quo and fixing what is bad about it.
Call it the arc of history, current events, what have u. My point is u define conservatism by size and scope of action or deviation from current trends not a set of core principles centered around personal liberty.
(03-13-2019, 01:50 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (03-12-2019, 10:39 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]Only the non-curious and grossly inattentive are incapable of realizing that, with our record level of tax receipts, our unsustainable level of spending is getting to the point of threatening our national sovereignty.
I guess the President shouldn't be pushing the highest-spending budget in US history then, huh?
No he should not. Regardless of little (d) or little ® it's always the same. I would love a 5% reduction but at this point I would settle for no increase at all over the previous years budget.
There does seem to be a natural tendency for people who care about tradition (and those who want to preserve it) and those who don't care about tradition (and those who want to change it), which lends itself well to the idea of conservative vs progressive. However, saying conservatives in the US should be the same as those in Iran would be ridiculous, since they are not using the same starting point with regards to conservation. Calling something conservative should be in relation to the thing that you are trying to conserve. The value of conservation vs progression relates directly to the morality or rightness of that which is being preserved or changed.
Naturally, our founding fathers weren't conservative. They were progressive. That doesn't mean that modern day progressives are the same as the founding fathers. The founders used philosophy and reason and build a government based on the principles JJ was describing above. There was variation in their ideology from the onset, especially in the scope of government, such as the differences between Hamilton and Jefferson, but they all hailed the constitution as the defining document of the federal government.
I don't think the modern conservative party could exist until the threat of a new type of government could rival the constitutional Republic. In this case, I think you need to look back to the 50's when the threat of socialism and communism were on the rise. Buckley, Friedman, Kirk, just to name a few, were the forerunners of modern conservatism. This is when preservation became a staple of the political movement. Within the conservative party, you will still see Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians, but you won't see Marxists.
(03-13-2019, 01:50 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (03-12-2019, 10:39 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]Only the non-curious and grossly inattentive are incapable of realizing that, with our record level of tax receipts, our unsustainable level of spending is getting to the point of threatening our national sovereignty.
I guess the President shouldn't be pushing the highest-spending budget in US history then, huh?
He shouldn't. And Trump is not a conservative, so this is no surprise.
Unfortunately there was probably no one running for POTUS in 2016 who would demand a significant budget cut and be willing to "shut down the government" to get it. Trump vs. Nottrump doesn't make any difference. That doesn't mean we can't complain about it, but ascribing it to a single politician is useless.
(03-13-2019, 04:34 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2019, 01:50 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]I guess the President shouldn't be pushing the highest-spending budget in US history then, huh?
No he should not. Regardless of little (d) or little ® it's always the same. I would love a 5% reduction but at this point I would settle for no increase at all over the previous years budget.
Agree.
The obvious shouldn't have to be explained.
But then, we're dealing with childish "resistance" at this point where being thoughtful about the subject is out the window. The arguments so lazily lobbed are simply reflexive behavior at this point.
29 pages on this.
Nothing on Christchurch.
Bit close to home obviously.
(03-17-2019, 04:11 PM)lastonealive Wrote: [ -> ]29 pages on this.
Nothing on Christchurch.
Bit close to home obviously.
You could have started a thread on it yourself, and I positive a lot of posters would favorably chime in to defend the innocent Muslim worshipers that were horribly murdered by "another" hate extremist. There are a lot of people that blames others for not leading the way in condemning hate, and there are a lot of followers looking for a leader to follow in condemning that same hate. Stay on the side of compassion, and embracing others of all religions, and not only can any one of us lead the way, we can as a group become integrated into a collective force that recognizes fake hate versus real hate. The narrative that hate is more abundant than it actually is has created a sense of rebuttal hate against anyone even remotely suspected of any prejudice. In today's world, everything has become a hate crime. I don't hate anyone for who they are ... no way am I in the minority.
Unfortunately Sammy a big part of the story is how lax gun laws have played a part. You get a lot of angry and upset people in here when you say anything on guns.
Let's face it round here the 'leftist' female politician is a bad guy. The types of politician who radicalise and inflame the shooter aren't.
Please, elaborate on new zelands gun policies.
(03-17-2019, 05:27 PM)lastonealive Wrote: [ -> ]Unfortunately Sammy a big part of the story is how lax gun laws have played a part. You get a lot of angry and upset people in here when you say anything on guns.
Let's face it round here the 'leftist' female politician is a bad guy. The types of politician who radicalise and inflame the shooter aren't.
I didn't think it was possible for politicians and media types to influence people?
(03-17-2019, 05:27 PM)lastonealive Wrote: [ -> ]Unfortunately Sammy a big part of the story is how lax gun laws have played a part. You get a lot of angry and upset people in here when you say anything on guns.
Let's face it round here the 'leftist' female politician is a bad guy. The types of politician who radicalise and inflame the shooter aren't.
But it was leftist politicians who radicalized and inflamed the shooter, so your statement makes no sense.
Whoever said that.
It's clear most round here and influenced by fox. Hence this thread
(03-17-2019, 06:37 PM)lastonealive Wrote: [ -> ]Whoever said that.
It's clear most round here and influenced by fox. Hence this thread
Ah, the Fox as boogeyman myth strikes again.
I don't watch Fox. I doubt very many of the posters here do, even among the conservatives and libertarians.
Wasn't the Mosque killer one of your countrymen? Maybe it was a good idea for your ruling elite to disarm the Australian peons after all.
Well it is good as it looks like he targeted NZ due to their looser gun laws.i assume NZ will now see the problem and bring in Australian like gun laws.
Please. Elaborate on looser. What are the gun laws in NZ?
Didn’t take long for someone to bite on lastone’s gun control obsession.