ABC-Obama's Brownshirts Ready to "Take Orders" and "Do his Bidding"

[Wabatuckian]

Nevermind...

 

[Bill of Rights]

You Republicans might have kept the White House if you hadn't screwed things up so badly the previous eight years.

Jason

True. If GWB had followed basic conservative, small-government ideology, the whole country would be better off.

Blessings,
B

 

[wp wrecks]

True. If GWB had followed basic conservative, small-government ideology, the whole country would be better off.

Blessings,
B

+1

 

[dburkhead]

True. If GWB had followed basic conservative, small-government ideology, the whole country would be better off.

Blessings,
B

QFT. That's a repper.

 

[NateIU10]

QFT. That's a repper.

+1

Too bad I've given you too much rep already lol

 

[Disposable Heart]

All I got to say gents is BOO Obama, YAY BACON!

I am a bit of a wackjob lib from time to time, but I do like the idea of my government big enough to fit in my underwear drawer. A small government is a quick reaction and more receptive government, serving the constituents, not demanding from them.

 

[Archaic_Entity]

All I got to say gents is BOO Obama, YAY BACON!

I am a bit of a wackjob lib from time to time, but I do like the idea of my government big enough to fit in my underwear drawer. A small government is a quick reaction and more receptive government, serving the constituents, not demanding from them.

That confuses me, slightly. If you're claiming as a lib, then want a small government? Is it just the issues that you're more liberal minded on? Like abortion, or the death penalty, or anything like that? While still preferring a government that doesn't control the entire country?

The reason I ask is because professing as a liberal, until you're intending to say libertarian, doesn't make any sense to me.

I'm just curious.

 

[Disposable Heart]

Well, I like some liberal views but I prefer a smaller government in which to do so. I think TOO MANY people lump everyone in black/white, liberal/conservative, not understanding the sutble shades of gray.

I think folks need to brush up on their politics. One can be a liberal but with a conservative government size. A government doesnt need to be intrusive on the populace's lives, but can support fundamentals. I believe in the right of choice, the right to gay marriage and some others that are liberal slanted. Heck, the government actually pulls it's constant intrusion out of certain areas with the liberal slant on some issues. What is "conservative" in these cases is actually liberal, in that many conservatives want to impose laws governing this, however, not understanding they are increasing governmental scope. The true definition of liberal is one desiring change to the Constitution, a conservative is one who wants no changes to the Constitution. Both sides of the aisle in regards to political parties dont seem to understand that the other side wants intrusion, but claim they dont. One place, however, the government needs expansion into is social programs, education and economic reform, my personal view. But a huge government is not needed for even this, but a stronger local and state governmental matrix, appropriately supported by Federal GUIDELINES, not agencies and laws, fueled by local and even Federal funding would eliminate alot of waste.

A Glock 26 will stop a fight just as quick as a 17 will, but they are equally as accurate and can use the same magazines. One just does it in a smaller size .

 

[esigler]

Well, I like some liberal views but I prefer a smaller government in which to do so. I think TOO MANY people lump everyone in black/white, liberal/conservative, not understanding the sutble shades of gray:


Isnt the guys name JOE LIBERMAN!

 

[Disposable Heart]

Well, I like some liberal views but I prefer a smaller government in which to do so. I think TOO MANY people lump everyone in black/white, liberal/conservative, not understanding the sutble shades of gray:


Isnt the guys name JOE LIBERMAN!

Well, expecting a beating from folks! I like alot of Liberman's views, with KEY EXCEPTIONS.

His gun control and media/government involvement and consumer protection concepts are big government. However, he approved getting rid of affirmitive action (a useless program in my eyes, DONT LYNCH ME PLEASE ), likes education, and stem cell research.

Some good points, but there is some moral issues that folks will have, well, issues with, such as gay marriage, abortion and stem cell research.

 

[Archaic_Entity]

Well, I like some liberal views but I prefer a smaller government in which to do so. I think TOO MANY people lump everyone in black/white, liberal/conservative, not understanding the sutble shades of gray.

I think folks need to brush up on their politics. One can be a liberal but with a conservative government size. A government doesnt need to be intrusive on the populace's lives, but can support fundamentals. I believe in the right of choice, the right to gay marriage and some others that are liberal slanted. Heck, the government actually pulls it's constant intrusion out of certain areas with the liberal slant on some issues. What is "conservative" in these cases is actually liberal, in that many conservatives want to impose laws governing this, however, not understanding they are increasing governmental scope. The true definition of liberal is one desiring change to the Constitution, a conservative is one who wants no changes to the Constitution. Both sides of the aisle in regards to political parties dont seem to understand that the other side wants intrusion, but claim they dont. One place, however, the government needs expansion into is social programs, education and economic reform, my personal view. But a huge government is not needed for even this, but a stronger local and state governmental matrix, appropriately supported by Federal GUIDELINES, not agencies and laws, fueled by local and even Federal funding would eliminate alot of waste.

A Glock 26 will stop a fight just as quick as a 17 will, but they are equally as accurate and can use the same magazines. One just does it in a smaller size .

Fair enough. And that's why I was asking. I wouldn't lump someone with a group based off one word, in this case "liberal". My question was asked because, if I'm reading you correctly, you're practically Libertarian--so far as I have come to understand what Libertarianism means. I'm a strong believer in small government, without Federal legislation and regulation all over the place. But I'm also very much in agreeance with personal choice that doesn't come with the Republican party on certain issues, such as gay marriage and so forth.

See, I think one of the beauties of America is that... if you don't like the way one state governs things, you can just move to another state where you do like how they do it. You don't have to change countries, cut your citizenship to the US or anything ridiculous; you just move. To me, that's what Libertarianism is all about. Keeping it to small governments, allowing the states to control. If Indiana thinks it's silly to allow gay marriage, that's fine. Vermont disagrees, move there. Rather than having some huge "America agrees to gay marriage" when, personally, I disagree with making it a Federal matter.

Anyway, that was the reason for my question. I'd agree to social liberalism with political conservatism... because that's how America was founded. It was a place where the government was designed to defend the rights of Americans, and deliver their mail. That's about it.