Mayor of Boston attacks Chick-fil-a...

stratoaxe wrote: I don't see it with FE. I actually see FE as a good person with poor sources.

Exactly. I dont see FE as a hotemonger out to hurt those around him, I see him as a blind vigilante out to hurt those around him based on what he's told. He likes to think of himself as a judgemental thinker, but he's not. He blindly belives what he's told to, and attacks others for being sheep. I have no problem with labelling him because of the hatred he spews in the idea of whats right.

High Voltage wrote: I'd still love to hear what part of FE's position here actually counts as small government. So far I've yet to find it.

Edited by stratoaxe - 19 August 2012 at 11:12pm

usafpilot07 wrote: stratoaxe wrote: ] The conservative right essentially endorses small government when it comes to business. They want a hands off approach. This is why so many people such as myself choose to identify with the right politically...I like the conservative economic approach.   Except...I don't identify with the right because the right isn't conservative. They preach small government yet want mass amounts of money funneled into a basically unregulated unchained military complex. The preach freedom of religion yet are the first to imply that Islam is, as a religious way of life, the enemy of the United States. They preach the sanctity of life when it comes to abortion but then advocate restricting welfare programs because the parents aren't working. I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but do you equate welfare restrictions with abortion? That's a pretty big stretch, IMHO

From a purely ideological standpoint I think that they're inseparable issues.

The right's pursuit to protect the value of human life seems to be limited to abortion. After abortion it becomes purely economic-get off your ass and provide for yourself.

Now to be clear I have no problem with either of these viewpoints, but they're not from the same logic pool. Say you feel that the stability and future of all society depends on access to individual wealth and that the welfare system is threatening that pool of wealth-we could debate that for hours. It's a perfectly logical foundation for an argument. I don't think it's necessarily immoral to set aside the human element in order to ensure survival of a society. In this position both abortion and welfare elimination can make sense.

But when you regulate law on the basis of human life you're drawing from a completely different pool of ideas. Suddenly human life supersedes economic well being. This is also a perfectly logical platform to preach from. But what about after birth? What about the QUALITY of human life? Food stamps and Medicaid programs are quite valuable in this pursuit. It almost seems sadistic to say you want a child to live but not live well.

Obviously this is extreme oversimplification of the issues, but it illustrates my concept. If you're simply pro life because you think abortion is murder that's one thing. But life doesn't end at birth.

I'm not saying you can't be pro life and anti welfare, but I think that there's a real contradiction in the language I hear from conservatives as of late. I've said this time and time again, but I consider myself conservative. I'm pro business, pro gun, and pro states' rights. But I'm also pro choice, pro gay marriage, and pro welfare (to a reasonable degree.)

But the far right elements of the party see my values as a contradiction. The funny thing is that I feel like a majority of Americans hold this platform. I feel like, had Romney been allowed to run as the moderate he was rather than pandering to these elements, the right could have worked wonders with this election. Instead, the key issue is going to revolve around a chicken sandwich. /facepalm America

StormyKnight wrote: choopie911 wrote: FreeEnterprise wrote: As by definition a person who has sex with a person of the same sex is in fact a homosexual.  So I can physically go make someone a homosexual against their will? Doesn't that idea terrify you FE? That someone could roofie you and have their way with you and suddenly you would be a homosexual for the rest of your life? Because that's totally how it works. I'll do the "Rob Roy" quote here.  "If you take no pleasure in it, it isn't a sin."

That justifies all sorts o' murder.

Oh American Thinker, you so silly.