[ekim68]

Originally Posted by wacor

Capitalism is not perfect and never will be. I am not for anarchy with zero regulations but regulations that are realistic and based on needs and common sense and not knee jerk crap like we get.

So does that mean we cannot legislate greed? And, when is one person's greed more important than the next person?

[wacor]

Originally Posted by ekim68

So does that mean we cannot legislate greed? And, when is one person's greed more important than the next person?

Admit it you were drinking when you posted this

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by ekim68

So does that mean we cannot legislate greed? And, when is one person's greed more important than the next person?

Dude ... That is a pretty broad statement, even for you.

Firstly,
What is your definition of greed?

[Fyzbo]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

I'd love to:

But you parse the question so interestingly, that I feel I must fiokrst ask, What are Liberals liberating? .... aside from liberating earnings from earners? (BTW Progressive is just another word for Liberal)

What are Conservative values?

Well, the dictionary defines Conservative as preserving existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

I do not think that generalized definition grasps the essense of what Conservative valies are, IMO.

I decided to search out some key points, so many of these are either not my words or modified from what I found.

• Don't over tax
• Limit Government so that each American is responsible for success or failure
• Hold People accounable for their actions.
• Support our military. This cannot be accomplished while opposing their mission.
• Support each persons right to exercize their religion (or lack there of)
• Oppose socailism.
• Abortion is wrong. Stop teaching that it is merely a mistake, or somehow virtuous to abort a human being, or that there is nothing wrong with abortion.
• Global warming is not the fault of humanity or Capitalism. Current legislation will have no impact, whatsoever, on the global climate. Saving jobs and the economy are far more important at this time. Surrendering US sovereignty is utterly idiotic.
• The public education system is poor. Private education is far superior. Why not support vouchers to give parents the FREEDOM to sent their kids wherever they want?
• Preserve American Capitalism. Regulate with reasonable expectations, and reward companies that provide American jobs, and reduce their impact on the environment.
• The conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.
• Conservatives believe that freedom and private property are closely linked.
• Conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.
• The Conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.

• Traditional family values and the sanctity of marriage
• A small, non-invasive government
• A strong national defense focused on protection and the fight against terrorism
• A respect for faith and religion
• The right to life for every human being

How can you respect faith and religion, while at the same time support those with no religion?

I will say that this list does not represent Republican values.

[LANMaster]

Easily. Most religious entities are concerned with charity and good will.
IMO that is respect worthy.
But at the same time we have the freedom to worship or not to worship, to believe in something or not.

The values are not in conflict.

Problems with any of those other values?

[ekim68]

Originally Posted by Fyzbo

How can you respect faith and religion, while at the same time support those with no religion?

I will say that this list does not represent Republican values.

What are the Republican values in your opinion? IMO, they seem to be reduced to soundbites...

[wacor]

Originally Posted by ekim68

What are the Republican values in your opinion? IMO, they seem to be reduced to soundbites...

and you probably think the democrats are not reduced to soundbites I suppose??

The only candidate that ran for president that was not into soundbites but had an actual core set of principles was Ron Paul. But all the soundbites deriding him as a kook sure did get plenty of attention.

[TooBad]

Originally Posted by wacor

and you probably think the democrats are not reduced to soundbites I suppose??

The only candidate that ran for president that was not into soundbites but had an actual core set of principles was Ron Paul. But all the soundbites deriding him as a kook sure did get plenty of attention.

I agree, but when it came to foreign policy, Ron Paul was a kook. Sorry, but that is a fact. His domestic policies were terrific and he follows the Constitution like no one else. If we had always had his philosophy on foreign policy, that would have been a fairly good thing. Not in every case, but better than we have. To attempt to intitute that policy now, is too late in the game to do so without severe consequences that we are not prepared to pay.

[wacor]

Originally Posted by TooBad

I agree, but when it came to foreign policy, Ron Paul was a kook. Sorry, but that is a fact. His domestic policies were terrific and he follows the Constitution like no one else. If we had always had his philosophy on foreign policy, that would have been a fairly good thing. Not in every case, but better than we have. To attempt to intitute that policy now, is too late in the game to do so without severe consequences that we are not prepared to pay.

I never believed he would be able to completely pull out. I agree he was over the top on some foreign policy but you have to start somewhere. The two parties are not minding the house very well. If nothing else it would have been 4 years of pretty good gridlock and the country would have been in better shape for it. He had the right message in general but was the wrong messenger. If you had anybody with charisma talking about things he did then he would have been elected IMO.

[TooBad]

Originally Posted by wacor

I never believed he would be able to completely pull out. I agree he was over the top on some foreign policy but you have to start somewhere. The two parties are not minding the house very well. If nothing else it would have been 4 years of pretty good gridlock and the country would have been in better shape for it. He had the right message in general but was the wrong messenger. If you had anybody with charisma talking about things he did then he would have been elected IMO.

That is true. If Fred Thompson had not muffed his entry so badly, he might have been a good choice. My one concern with Fred is his CFR membership as I am not sure whether or not that organization has ulterior motives to the "One World" government or not. But he blew it and we will never know.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by TooBad

I agree, but when it came to foreign policy, Ron Paul was a kook. Sorry, but that is a fact. His domestic policies were terrific and he follows the Constitution like no one else. If we had always had his philosophy on foreign policy, that would have been a fairly good thing. Not in every case, but better than we have. To attempt to intitute that policy now, is too late in the game to do so without severe consequences that we are not prepared to pay.

that's a darn good assessment, TooBad
tho to change direction, there is gonna be some major costs at this point, any way you slice it.
i agree, however, that the electorate is too far gone to willingly support those changes

[TooBad]

Originally Posted by iltos

that's a darn good assessment, TooBad
tho to change direction, there is gonna be some major costs at this point, any way you slice it.
i agree, however, that the electorate is too far gone to willingly support those changes

Thanks, even a blind mouse finds the cheese once in a while!