The Bucknuts Hot Spot

I am and conservative and a Senior Pastor for 14 yrs. now and it would be safe to say that any political view or discussion will have it's faults. None of the views are absolute,because man in our humanity has faults, so we attempt to come up with our version of truth that is most definitely at times lacking, because we are frail. My conclusion is to not base my opinions on theory, ideology, or experimentation. History and principles win the day for me, we love to make constants variables, and variables constants,changing truth to lies and lies to truth. And I'm sure there will be some on this board that will confirm my notion by degrading each other with language, and trying to ridicule my opinion along with others through a short demonstration of their lack of control. So the question is can man maintain true freedom without personal responsibility and some sense of morality? Is freedom the right to do what whatever we want when we want, or is true freedom for one to have mastery over oneself choosing to live free by making decisions based upon principle and true sacrifice and not the feeling of the day. The day we all can admit there are some issues with all opinions and have meaningful discussion without degradation and learn to examine ones own opinion carefully, not assuming because it's my opinion it's the right one the more pleasant it would be everywhere, including this board! Even right now overseas there are conservatives, liberals, moderates and pragmatist who are shedding the same blood for that freedom!

Really. I take it for granted that gay marriage is wrong? What are you talking about? Just because someone is conservative does not mean their opposed to gay marriage. I'm not! You can't even have an intelligent conversation because you think you have it all figured out. These issues are complicated.

Your arguments are so slanted that you are defining you own views. You wish to use social tools to regulate your ideas on us.

I said "you may" take it for granted. Key words there.

And you are putting a lot of words in my mouth. I'm pretty sure I never told anyone that they were wrong and I was right, I just pointed out what I thought was a contradiction in your points. And of course I define my own views, isn't that the definition of having an opinion? It's highly ironic that you are accusing me of trying to regulate social issues when I am saying that social issues should not be regulated by a particular group in respect to another group (especially one that they largely disapprove of) and you are the one saying that states (preferably dominated by conservatives I'm guessing) should be the ones to decide how moral issues are dealt with.

So here comes the regulars and there goes an intellectual and polite discussion without challenging the character of someone who says something different from what you think.

He did not say Reagan sucks, he pointed out that he and Bush cut taxes and never got around to cutting spending. This increased the deficit each year and began really piling on the debt. I almost voted for Reagan in 1980 because one of his main campaign promises was to balance the budget within his first 3 years. By 1983, the party that was against any deficit/debts suddenly decided there was nothing wrong with a little debt and Reagan was reelected in a landslide. He almost tripled the size of the debt in his 8 years. Though compared to today's debt, it seems almost laughable when someone brings it up because his ending debt was so low. Reagan's debt went from $712 billion in 1980 to $2.05 trillion in 1988. Then Bush 1 almost doubled it in his 4 years, ending with a debt of $4.0 trillion. Clinton put the breaks on but still added $1.6 trillion to the debt. Compared to the almost 300% increase during Reagan's 8 years and the almost 200% in Bush 1's 4 years, the 40% increase in Clinton's 8 years seems pretty good. Then W took the debt from $5.6 to $10.6 trillion in 8 years, for a 90% increase. Obama has taken it from $10.6 to $15.4 in 3 years for a 45% increase.
See Chart at: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

It was and I'm going back and upvoting your posts. Unfortunately, on this board some people downvote you as a way of showing they disagree with your ideas and opinions or just because they do not like you from other threads, etc.

That was smart ass. Hence my specific reference to my first two responses. Then I started turning into a smart ass.

It's a fair question. I think abortion is wrong. I think readily available contraceptions isn't bad. I don't think forcing Catholics to pay for them is good. But with that train of thought I could start of church where taxes are against my religion. It's complicated and I don't pretend to have all the answers (except that Reagan didn't suck).

The Pubs would much rather see the president fall, and our debt increases then to see the current administration be successful. Moreover, how can a party advocate less government and at the same time impose their own values, religious beliefs; invade the privacy of women, less taxes on the wealthy and in the same breath advocate for the middleclass. Also, A Pubs in a speech said and I paraphrase “The needs of man (biblically) is more important the the furtherance of the earth” (which supports all life) would ever think any logically thinking person would ever elect them to presidency. Somehow, the Pubs think they that have superiority when it comes to morals, Christianity, and most of all, values we should all adhere too because they are the last word... Hypocrisy as an ideology seems to be the sign of the times with folks in this year’s election.

And finally, this election cycle began the conversation with our debt, the economy and jobs. Although the sitting administrations have not tackled issue 1- the debt. Nonetheless when you have abstractionist like the Pubs in this congress, (tea party included) and the debt committee’s failure to reach a deal (coupled with compromise) do not have this country’s best interest in mind. Especially when the heightened interest rate on the debt will increase each of our individual credit debt and take –home pay. To me, these (republican) obstructionist don’t deserve the hold public office. If I hear one more Pub say let’s take our country back, I am going to scream!

Did I say Reagan sucked? I actually agreed with his plan to reduce taxes but if you don't also reduce spending it is a really bad idea. Look at how much the debt increased on his watch. His record on the debt was really bad.

I could agree with the OP in earnest which is why I consider myself more of a federalist or Libertarian than conservative. But I reject the notion of this being something unique to conservatives as far as hypocrisy in public policy goes. (I know...you never SAID that it was only conservatives that were hypocritical in this regard, but the fact that you chose to start an entire thread to single out one glaring issue in your mind reveals an inner thought process you may not be willing to actually put to the public dialogue).

Yes, on it's strictly logical merits it is a hypocrisy. So what? The same people bitching about inequitable applications of the Law and Constitution and policy live on both sides of the fence. If certain posters cannot see that then there is no grounds for a rational discourse anyway. Or perhaps they do but they'd rather engage in the battle of ideas because they like inciting people. I don't know.

That said, I agree that much of what conservatives want are hypocritical on the face. I think my fellow conservatives (cons, if certain on this board would prefer the term, I don't frankly care) would do well to remember there is a difference between establishing law and establishing morality in a society. You don't need the former to accomplish the latter. It gets us into stupid debates like this all the time.

I don't smoke, and I believe I should do everything in my power to discourage people from smoking. But I do not believe I should use the government as a weapon of force to compel people to quit.

I don't drink, but I think the Prohibition Amendment was a bad idea and a disaster and while I will always try to encourage people not to drink, I don't see any merits in making drinking illegal.

I don't hunt, I don't own a gun. But if you try to eliminate my right to do so, we have a problem.

I DO believe states are laboratories of democracy and that is where the bulk of public policy ideas should be played out. I oppose gay marriage, but if the good folks of Massachusetts decide they are for it, then so be it. I just won't choose to live there.

Mind you, I'll fight to stand up for my values in any instance, but I do not believe it is the government's role to intercede in many such cases (especially the Federal Government).

As far as the deb/tax/fiscal debate. I think everyone defending or criticizing either party needs to take a step back and answer the following two questions before bickering about the other side:

1) When was the last time Federal Spending actually decreased?
2) When as the last time the US DEBT (NOT the deficit, but the actual DEBT which is all that really matters at this point) actually decreased?

I think you'll find that None of the presidents referenced thus far have much to benefit from those two questions, not even Clinton.

urb, you are truely a bore.

Good point, I should've specified in my original post, although these days sometimes it's easy to forget that the old-school conservatives are around with the neocons drowning them out.