What is a "pure" conservative?

[rambone]

I understand and enjoy your posts.


Let me ask your thoughts on this....

I have no problem if a person wants to smoke a weed, smoke a cigarette, shoot heroine, crack or whatever....

That person may eat, drink, shoot, snort, inject, or injest any substance they wish into their body they choose. I honestly do not care and could not possibly care less.

Now, when the day comes where that person is suffering from those decisions, is going through withdraw, is seeking counseling for his addiction, or is dying from an OD, I do not believe the power of the state should be available to force me to subsidize such activity.

What say you?

I would agree. That's the Fiscally Conservative aspect. That's how the 2 philosophies can (and should) coexist.

Charity is important but it is a private, voluntary matter.

 

[J_Wales]

I would agree. That's the Fiscally Conservative aspect. That's how the 2 philosophies can (and should) coexist.

Charity is important but it is a private, voluntary matter.

Ask those that you know their thoughts on the example I presented and let me know where they stand on the "socially liberal" aspect as well as the "fiscally conservative" aspect. I would truly be interested in not only what they have to say but in how they are practicing it.

You are correct that charity is a private matter. Once charity is legislated it is no longer charity; it is theft.

 

[hornadylnl]

I agree. College should be compulsory, and paid for by the state. At least an Associates in applied sciences, or trade school, would get people ready for the real world and jobs. Then they can go to a private uni after that for an even better job.

This is pure conservative.

 

[BigD]

So this is the root of our current Primary challanges. Candidates that appeal to people the rightmost 20% typically don't hold up too well when viewed by the 60% of people in the middle of the political spectrum. Mitt has tried to be a good Republican by appealing to the socially conservative and thus manages to simultaneously look like a fraud to those on the right and alienate those in the middle. Lose lose situation.

If you divorce social issues (marriage rights, reproductive rights, drug laws, etc) from fiscal issues (taxation, size and scope of government), then there is a greater chance to garner the 60%. There are lots of Hoosiers who voted a straight democratic ticket in 2008 but also voted for Mitch for this very reason. Stay out of people's bedrooms and the Republicans have a better chance for success.

 

[J_Wales]

So this is the root of our current Primary challanges. Candidates that appeal to people the rightmost 20% typically don't hold up too well when viewed by the 60% of people in the middle of the political spectrum. Mitt has tried to be a good Republican by appealing to the socially conservative and thus manages to simultaneously look like a fraud to those on the right and alienate those in the middle. Lose lose situation.

If you divorce social issues (marriage rights, reproductive rights, drug laws, etc) from fiscal issues (taxation, size and scope of government), then there is a greater chance to garner the 60%. There are lots of Hoosiers who voted a straight democratic ticket in 2008 but also voted for Mitch for this very reason. Stay out of people's bedrooms and the Republicans have a better chance for success.

You mean if there was a candidate that focused on governing within the confines of the Constitution as established by the States?

If only there were a candidate that had that as a platform as well as a solid record of say 30 years or so of doing it.

Hmmmm.