Well as close as your own head will allow anyone to you. I'm in Northern California and I am still having trouble seeing the Golden Gate Bridge. Would you please just sit your a$$ down for once?
Thank you.
Apology to the board
- Thread starter USFREEDOM911
- Start date
Well as close as your own head will allow anyone to you. I'm in Northern California and I am still having trouble seeing the Golden Gate Bridge. Would you please just sit your a$$ down for once?
Thank you.
NCLB may or may not be "unconstitutional". What its goals were/are was to tell states if you want federal dollars you must prove by state standards of improvements that the money is being well spent. States could/have opted out and not received federal funds. That STILL DOES NOT make it a compromise of social conservatives.
I am a social and fiscal conservative. I was against both the amnesty bill and the pill bill. I have numerous friends who share my views. I blog and read numerous sites. I submit that your examples the amnesty, and the pill bill are not any kind of social conservative compromises...but just bad and misguided legislation given a pragmatic polish to have broad appeal (compromises for all by all). In the case of the pill bill I submit that it was a dem gimmie by Bush to get war spending. NCLB was a purely fiscal bill in an attempt to reign in education spending. DOMA was a national response to traditional values voters that comprised independents; republican's; and democrats.
Dixie's awesome.
I happen to like Dixie and the fact that these guys like him so little, makes me like him even more.
Yes, that was a vote they "compromised" at the request of a President who was solely "social" conservative (not even a little bit fiscal or constitutional) so that they could be assured a "compromise" later from those who otherwise wouldn't vote for what is important to them, some "social conservative" ideal that would be still more government soul-nannyism. Let me give you a hint: If a bill is written by Kennedy, it is very likely not something that could even halfway be considered fiscally conservative. When it takes government money, allocates it and spends it without first paying for it elsewhere by cuts, then attempts to use it as a run-around on federal control over something they have not (per the constitution) within their power, it is definitely not fiscally or constitutionally conservative.
That you say you are one of the rare social/fiscal conservatives doesn't change my point one iota. Those who are proud social conservatives are more willing to compromise on the things I find important as those things are further down their priorities list. The few who put equal emphasis on social and fiscal issues are rare.
I too like Dixie. I always have.
Which was a vote they compromised??? And who are the they? What was compromised the quid pro quo???
NCLB was a bi-partisan bill written by Boehner (R) Miller (D) Gregg (R) Kennedy (D) It was supported by Bush to force states into fiscal accountability for federal funds...its directive was to classroom teachers being held accountable for improving reading; math; science; and health.
Whether or not it has failed to do so is another debate.
You keep saying these compromises happen and yet show NONE.
Jeebus. Follow the money. The Social Conservatives who had some fiscal conservatism lower on their priority list compromised those fiscal ideals at the behest of a President who had no "fiscal or constitutional" conservatism in him. They believed that this compromise would buy them votes from those more liberal in the party at a later date for what they found more important, some soul-saving legislation that protects the sanctity of something later, or they did it to pay back for a past vote where those more liberal souls compromised to vote for DOMA, etc.
What you are seeking is some dude standing up and saying, "Well, I voted this way to pay back Bob for compromising in the past."
Well, they don't do that. However, you can see what passes and judge on where the legislators priorities lie. I find that they (social conservatives) put a decreased priority on fiscal/constitutional conservatism to my detriment, based on votes like Tancredo's for the Bailout, or pretty much any R's for NCLB, or the Pill Bill... Tancredo was paying somebody back for a previous compromise in his favor for the one thing he priorities above all others... (border)...
You keep pretending you are incapable of seeing anything at all based in the actual history of laws that get passed, I say you are being grossly disingenuous. In short, I do not believe you to be that stupid. In fact, I think you do this to cover the fact that you too would compromise on those things I find important in order to have the government once again protect me with soul-nannyism...
You believe in fiscal responsibility, but you will compromise that because you prioritize soul-nannyism above fiscal conservatism. You don't like being put into such a group, but I think it is reality. Of course I won't know until I see what you support. Already I know that constitutional conservatism is not exactly high enough on your list to gain my vote by your defense of NCLB, and that fiscal conservatism isn't even close to where I think the priorities of those I vote for should be based on the same defense of the same law.
NCLB took Federal money and used it as a lever to end-run the constitution and take the first step into centralized control over a power they do not have authority to control. It was both fiscally and constitutionally liberal.
First off Boehner is not a "social conservative" and neither is Gregg. In theory the NCLB legislation seemed fiscally responsible and numerous commentators have also said as much! As I said, its outcome and Constitutionality is debatable...but that is not the argument we have been having! You continue to talk of compromises that were given for the bill that are NOT in evidence...the burden Damo is on you as you are the one who has made the fricking claim!
I have no defense of NCLB other than to articulate its aim and correct any false attributions...and to require you to back up your allegations of these still mysterious compromises.
DOMA had sweeping support from everyone!!!
Your personal likes and dislikes do not an argument prove.
What compromise(s) have I made Damo?
Again, the people who are social conservatives who voted for this that normally wouldn't are the ones who compromised. It's almost like you actually are pretending to be incapable of understanding who is doing the compromise.
Who said that you personally HAVE compromised anything? I have stated why, if you were running, I wouldn't vote for you. Through your support of NCLB you have shown that your priorities are not in line with my fiscal/constitutional conservatism.
You may very well be a social conservative, fiscal and conservative liberal like Bush and are happy with laws like NCLB and therefore have no reason to have your compromise sought for.... but I, for one, won't vote for that.
"You believe in fiscal responsibility, but you will compromise that because you prioritize soul-nannyism above fiscal conservatism. You don't like being put into such a group, but I think it is reality."
You are just so FOS! YOU are the one who keeps proclaiming compromises that have happened and yet after several posts STILL cannot show these compromises. Now you sate I am a compromiser and then say you didn't.
The conservative camp as I said in my first post on this subject is divided into basically 3 categories with the new arrival of neo conservatism; which I stated I believed was made up of very few adherents.
I also challenged your assertion that the combination of fiscal and social conervatism was rare.
Your snide remark that the sanctity of life issue is "soul nannyism" is stupid and ignorant! Most conservative, being as I assert, both fiscal and social, understand that conservatism is about restraint. Restraint socially and fiscally. To vote for a candidate who holds to this is not compromising anything! To vote for a candidate who is one or the other is the compromise!
When Bush ran he ran with a record from his time as the governor from Texas...it's a pretty conservative record...not the best, but he was my choice over Gore. Was that a compromise? I don't think so. If Bush had been ambivalant about abortion I still would have voted for him as I did McCain. The primary vote is where I make my conscience vote...hopefully that person is also the final candidate.
You are unable to prove your assertions against "social conservatives".
a. That social conservatives are rarely fiscal cosnervatives as well.
b. That they "social" conservatives are always making adverse fiscal compromises.
Last edited:
No, I am directly telling you why people like me do not trust the party to do what we believe to be the right thing. We've too often seen our principles compromised by those we voted for, who spoke of fiscal and constitutional conservatism then compromised those principles at the behest of a President who was neither fiscally nor constitutionally conservative.
I have given examples and directly told you why I would not vote for you if you were running. From your stance on NCLB I can directly see that you do not have the same priorities I have for government. You are an example of somebody who puts fiscal conservatism below the social conservative priorities and are willing to compromise those things I find important. You speak of fiscal conservatism and then support laws that aren't. Dixie is one of the rare ones that support social conservatism (I am not at odds with social conservatives) and put equal importance on fiscal and constitutional conservative positions. Dixie would not have supported the Pill Bill, nor NCLB. You would support at least one of them, you have even recited apologist positions on it.
We'll agree more often than not, but you are willing to go where I am unwilling to compromise. I believe that end-runs on the constitution have more importance than you do, clearly by what you support.
Reality is, and history shows through the laws that were passed, conservatives do not always have the same priorities. And voting for those who do not have the priorities I believe are important have brought our party to its knees... relegated it to a superminority, and brougth mistrust to those who would support it.
That happens to every voter Damo! It still does not prove your assertions about:
a. That social conservatives are rarely fiscal cosnervatives as well.
b. That they "social" conservatives are always making adverse fiscal compromises.
Every single fricking voter makes compromises in the sense that no single candidate is able to live up to all of their prinsiples.
When it gets down to a general election we all have to either not vote or vote for the candidate most aligned with what we belive...period.
When candidates are holding office they too have to make compromises. If thsoe compromises are to gross we end up with TEA Party like groups...that's the way our system works!
However, the reality of which laws get passed do support my assertions, and the reaction of those who think like me to the party also supports my assertions. The very reality we live in today was created by the mistrust from those who compromised fiscal/constitutional conservatism and passed laws that were neither at the behest of our previous President.
The hope is that the TEA Party brings the party back into constitutional/fiscal conservatism. If that fails there will be a third party and conservatism will likely wind up in the minority for a longer period. Seriously, if you ignore the reality of 2008, that conservatives didn't go out to vote "for" any of those candidates and because of that the party was relegated to a super minority, then you are being deliberately self-delusional. I believe that you are smarter than that, and that you do this willfully.
Whether or not this "happens to every voter", the reality is what happened to the party was a very real reaction to exactly what I have surmised in this thread.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
The propagandistic value of making the socially/financially conservative separate is the implantation of the belief that there is some neat division between these two. There isn't.
agreed!
I haven't said there was. I said that they are rare. Oddly enough saying somebody "IS" something is not saying that something doesn't exist. In fact, if I believed that something didn't exist then it would be "impossible" for somebody to be that thing...
Anyway:
I believe that people prioritize things differently, I explained how and why I believe this, I supported it with history and current events... and those that put social conservatism above constitutional and fiscal conservatism (which people like Bush do) will compromise lower priorities to get things passed that they believe to be a higher priority (social conservatism)...
For evidence I provided several laws, showed how I believe conservatives compromised fiscal and constitutional conservatism, pointed as to where and why I believed the laws to be both fiscally and constitutionally liberal....
The only "answer" I get is "point out where they compromised!"... Which is just pretense. I've made myself clear to an intelligent person who is mistreating her own intelligence with excuses...
These are the reasons that people distrusted, and threw out, the R Party....
In short, IT'S THE SPENDING, STUPID!
Musta been good because you don't plop yourself just any old where.
Now get up. We need to fill in the hole.
I know you like Dixie, and even though you have a tendency to come across as The Last Word, your ability to twist up the $hit-$chticks is not lost on me.
It's hard to like a know-it-all, but you fare better than most.
In short you failed to prove your assertions apart from just continuing to assert them. Conservatives making compromise is not proof that they, the conservatives in question, were social conservatives. I never made the claim politicians and voters don't make compromises.
I asked you to prove your assertions:
a. That social conservatives are rarely fiscal cosnervatives as well.
b. That they "social" conservatives are always making adverse fiscal compromises.
Last edited: