The Bucknuts Hot Spot

Indeed true but there are others who don't want to pay for wars that conservative hawks seem to have a penchant for starting/wanting to start. I think it's a 2 way street where people need to accept that their tax dollars may pay for something that they don't approve of because that's part of the sacrifice of freedoms that we make to have a government in the first place. I may not support abortions but someone else may not support the social security I get. If no one paid taxes for things they don't like then the government would fall apart and no one would get anything out of it, which is the entire point of the social contract that forms the foundation of our idea of how a government interacts with its citizens.

Thank you for pointing out so simply one of the most confounding elements of conservatism, "the do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy as exemplified in many of its positions, such as the Citizens United decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. Even though the Constitution (however inconvenient it might be at times) makes nary a mention of corporations, the Scalia justices "legislated from the bench" in transferring to artificial legal entities a concept long assigned to individuals- namely freedom of speech- where none had previously existed. That's not to say that I buy into the concept that the judiciary overreaches when making rulings in cases involving conflicts between existing laws. Unfortunately, this new neo-conservatism is less about individual liberty and more about imposing its narrow view of morality on those with differing views and there's nothing more undemocratic and unpatriotic than that.

True, but Paul's vision of isolationism would be a disaster for the US. We simply cannot disengage from foreign policy and remain a superpower. We tried it in the 1920s and 30s and it only ended up lessening our influence worldwide and allowing both Germany and especially Japan to conduct more aggressive diplomacy than they would have otherwise been able to had we stood up against them earlier.

If we are willing to relinquish our role as the most powerful country in the world then isolationism is an option, but if we don't want to do that we have to keep doing the dirty work that is required to maintain that position. Imperial overstretch, as it's called, is always an issue with powerful countries and taking a step or two back may be useful but Paul's isolationist stance is completely out of touch with reality.

Agreed, the idea of supply-side economics sounds good but fails in reality because it only produces (proven twice now) a short-term economic boom followed by a massive accumulation of debt (particularly when the government massively increases spending as it did under Bush and Reagan) followed by economic failure because the economy is weighed down by the huge debt that the government runs up. It happened in the early 90s and ruined George Bush's chance at reelection and has screwed things up now. I don't think it was such a horrible idea to try it in the first place but the fact that Republicans want to keep bashing their head against the wall when the idea hasn't worked twice is baffling to me.

Agreed, republicans have not been fiscally conservative. However, the tax cuts of Kennedy, Regan and Bush each increased tax revenues substantially by spurring growth.

The problem of deficits going thru the roof is related to government spending outpacing both inflation and economic growth rates. If we dont get the spending under control, I'm afraid we are fucked.

When states decide these issues, the people of each state are free to live under these laws as they see fit. If one does not like it, they can move to a state that fits their preferences. I'm sure that most of the people of California would not like to live in Oklahoma, and vice versa.

Regarding Jim Crow laws, that does not support your arguement - Jim Crow laws were applied and repealed at the federal level - look at the military.

I am a conservative and I do not see it as a hypocrisy because on the federal level if they are not imposing the values or morals on the public than they do not need the extra tax money. Most conservatives are a live and let live kind of people. I see more liberals that will not let go of pettiness more than I see conservatives not letting go of pettiness. The only time that I see it in force is when you force conservatives into a corner and say that everything that they believe in is either wrong or does not matter.

I do believe that if the morals and views are legislated MOST of them should be at the State and Local level. The main reason (other than the way the US Constitution lays out the rights the the States and Local Government has) is because if someone from NYC has a certain value or moral that they hold it is likely very different in Lincoln Nebraska. Or a moral or value that someone in Birmingham AL has will be different than the value someone in San Diego California has. If the state and local governments legislate these types of things than they are likely more in tune with the population of that location rather than the Federal Government making sweeping legislation that will affect everyone even if there are groups that do not want or need the legislation.

That being said is where our lovely Democrats come into this argument. When Reagan and Bush played their economic game the Dems did everything they could to block any and all cuts to federal spending and entitlement programs. The Republicans sometimes identify the problems but lack the polictical fortitude to fix it. Look at fannie mae and freddie mac...the Federal Pressure to Underwriters to lower the standards so "everyone can own a home" started with the Clinton era and was not stopped under the Bush era. We can see how that went. Now Obama wants to play FDR and bring us out of the our economic doldrums by "stimulating" road construction (among other things). All that is SPENDING money. If you look at the last depression, the only thing that saved us was private industry coupled with the war. Federal Spending did nothing but provide us with nice highways. The budget is not really a hard concept. Every financially responsible American family has been doing it forever....Spending HAS to be lower to Income! If my Income is not meeting my Spending I have to cut back my Spending. Going out and robbing someone (income tax) to raise my Income to meet my Spending will land me in jail. Bush should have seen that in Iraq (the black hole of American Tax Dollars). He should have reserved at least 60% of the oil supply as "payment" from the Iraqis (don't forget the majority of Dems voted to go to war in Iraq).

As for the Hypocrisy I firmly believe it when it comes to social liberties. It is not the Federal Government's place to tell anyone who can marry who, pray to who, etc. I firmly believe that the family is the core strength of this country but the Government can not "express" (dictate) the importance of that foundation. Welfare is another program that was designed by the Feds to bolster the poor family and give them a crutch. Now it is another black hole of wasted money that actually destroys the family structure. Nobody will touch it because it is political suicide. Oh and the Fed Government tries to hold States as slaves to the almighty "Federal Grant". That has become the opiate of State Governments. The founding fathers envisioned a Federal Government to fill in the space that States could not with the understanding that Local Governance was supposed to be the most important Government.

So in finishing my rant, I agree Slickwillie....we are fooked. Need to end lobbyists, corporate influence, hollywood infulence, media influence and start a third party to start getting the politicians we deserve. For the people by the people concept is completely lost.

You are wavering on both sides of the fence with your argument. First of all (in my opinion), cut off the very far right and very far left in order to have an intelligent conversation. I am a conservative and very proud of it. I am not a religious right person and I do not even go to church on a regular basis. I believe in small government. I truly feel that business drives the success of our Country. This Country was founded on innovation and work ethic. Our own laws are driving American companies overseas (AON...just the latest). We have to make it more attractive for business to thrive in this Country. If business thrives, people work and tax income goes up. We are spending way too much money and it is not sustainable. We must make difficult decisions on social programs or our time has come as a super power. What is wrong with being a Fiscal Conservative??? I advocate for avoiding deficit spending. That is rule number one for my family and it should be for our Country. If we want to remain the world's number one economy and the world's number one innovator we have to make certain our country is the best place to do business. We are lost as a nation. Our tax codes are so dated that it is crushing business at every turn. This is true in Healthcare, Energy and Business. This is not Denmark, this country was founded on capitalism. If you are arguing for the US to be something different than take that approach, but business is the only driver in the success of our system.

We need the Federal Government to protect our boarders, defend our freedom and protect our rights per our Constitution.

Your post indicates that Big Government will "keep their nose out of the lives of conservatives". Guess what, we want them to keep their nose out of the lives of everyone (including you). Most conservatives don't want to pry into the private lives of group we don't agree with. Although, I am certain the feeling is mutual on the far left. We have freedoms in this country. I may not understand or like an opposing viewpoint, but I certainly respect them.

The social issues should not be part of the Federal Platform. I said it! Social issues should be decided at the state level. This includes the right to choose, gay marriage and if you can smoke in a restaurant. Let the states vote on it. I could care less if the 99% march in the streets of Chicago! Go for it! I still have the right to feel that they would be more successful getting a job and work like hell to get ahead like most of us do on a daily basis.

That is wrong. Federal spending is what pulled us out of the depression because of the massive amount the government spent (i.e. no-bid military contracts where the government gave a company a contract and let them set the price, allowing massively overestimated costs and huge profits). Private industry wouldn't have done anything without the government contracts to supply Lend-Lease stuff to the Brits and then to build our own stuff for when we got involved. In fact the Neutrality Acts that were passed in the 1930s to keep us out of the upcoming war were designed to keep the US from selling military equipment to any combatants but FDR was able to repeal them in time to help the Brits.

I agree that the federal government can have issues trying to put one-size fits all laws on the books, but the issue I have with the states' rights idea is that it's usually used to try to take rights away from others. A good example is gay marriage. You say states should have the right to decide for themselves on the issue but all that means is that you want to prevent gay people from marrying in your state. That is denying someone of their rights and is wrong to me. If a state passed a law banning conservatives from doing something we all know that all hell would break loose because everyone is entitled to their own political opinion, and I believe the same should apply to personal rights. Just because your state wants to deny someone of their rights doesn't meant that you should be able to.

I've never seen a gay couple raise a kid so I don't know how they would turn out, but I do know that I've seen a lot of straight couples raise horrible little brats that end up having a far worse impact on society than any law-abiding gay person.

You say that conservatives don't want to pry into the private lives of others, but then you say social issues should be decided by states, which is definitely prying into the lives of others. You may take it for granted that gay marriage is wrong, but others do not and that is why I see conservatives as being hypocritical when they want the government to not bother them but also want to use it as a social tool to regulate and enforce their idea of morality on others who may not follow the same values that they do.

That is like saying a virus will not mutate to adapt. Private industry will always find a way (move overseas due to tax laws).

So what you are saying is that more regulation stifled growth? The war is a whole separate topic itself. You can argue that the federal financial bend me over deal with the defense companies was also due to the fact that we were woefully under
equipped and ill prepared. Another history lesson repeated time again.

If this is the only critique I have on my post I appreciate it!

All I wanted to see is who the next stud urbs is bringing in and I sucked into this. Thanks