Secular Conservative
minervx wrote:
I generally agree with conservatives on Bush-era national security policies, a strong national defense, a limited government with empowerment to the states and local government. But I am not religious and believe in seperation of church and state.
Anyone else like me?
Anyone else like me?
We did not have limited government under either the the Bush-s.
ruveyn
ruveyn wrote:
minervx wrote:
I generally agree with conservatives on Bush-era national security policies, a strong national defense, a limited government with empowerment to the states and local government. But I am not religious and believe in seperation of church and state.
Anyone else like me?
Anyone else like me?
We did not have limited government under either the the Bush-s.
ruveyn
Not to mention that the notion of limited government is entirely incompatible with Bush-era national "security" policies which posit nearly unlimited federal power. The OP's professed political views are simply incoherent.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Orwell wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
minervx wrote:
I generally agree with conservatives on Bush-era national security policies, a strong national defense, a limited government with empowerment to the states and local government. But I am not religious and believe in seperation of church and state.
Anyone else like me?
Anyone else like me?
We did not have limited government under either the the Bush-s.
ruveyn
Not to mention that the notion of limited government is entirely incompatible with Bush-era national "security" policies which posit nearly unlimited federal power. The OP's professed political views are simply incoherent.
Not only near unlimited power, but also unfettered expansion and utter secrecy... I agree, I don't really understand what he could possibly be thinking.
_________________
"All valuation rests on an irrational bias."
-George Santayana
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS
minervx wrote:
I generally agree with conservatives on Bush-era national security policies, a strong national defense, a limited government with empowerment to the states and local government. But I am not religious and believe in seperation of church and state.
Anyone else like me?
Anyone else like me?
I disagree on only one point. That is, I believe in the abolition of organized religious institutions everywhere.
Failing that, I believe in the abolition of any law that grants tax-free status to any religious organization.
_________________
I am similar, I consider myself "conservative" in terms of limited government,limited taxation, limited government involvement in schools/ education, strong nation defense and protected borders, but I don't really care about social issues like abortion or gay marriage. However I would agree with previous posters that the majority of recent administrations have not really limited government power or reach in any way. And they seem more concerned with military aggression than "defense" or protecting our borders. We have 12 million illegal immigrants in this country... how can anyone pretend that we care about our borders (under either GOP or Dem administrations).
Fnord wrote:
Failing that, I believe in the abolition of any law that grants tax-free status to any religious organization.
People have the right to form associations freely so one cannot prevent organized religion. But you correctly recommend that no religious institution receive preferential tax treatment.
ruveyn
minervx wrote:
I generally agree with conservatives on Bush-era national security policies, a strong national defense, a limited government with empowerment to the states and local government. But I am not religious and believe in seperation of church and state.
Anyone else like me?
Anyone else like me?
I could probably be categorized as a secular conservative, but there are certainly some Bush era national security policies I disagree with - such as the USAPATRIOT act, which I believe unconstitutional.
Orwell wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
minervx wrote:
I generally agree with conservatives on Bush-era national security policies, a strong national defense, a limited government with empowerment to the states and local government. But I am not religious and believe in seperation of church and state.
Anyone else like me?
Anyone else like me?
We did not have limited government under either the the Bush-s.
ruveyn
Not to mention that the notion of limited government is entirely incompatible with Bush-era national "security" policies which posit nearly unlimited federal power. The OP's professed political views are simply incoherent.
Not to speak for minervx, but I think, when conservatives say "small government," they're talking about government that doesn't personally benefit them (as they see it). Keeping us safe from terror is something we all benefit from, so unlimited power in the name of stopping terrorism is warranted. Collecting taxes only to hand out money to the lazy unemployed is just theft.
Orwell wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
minervx wrote:
I generally agree with conservatives on Bush-era national security policies, a strong national defense, a limited government with empowerment to the states and local government. But I am not religious and believe in seperation of church and state.
Anyone else like me?
Anyone else like me?
We did not have limited government under either the the Bush-s.
ruveyn
Not to mention that the notion of limited government is entirely incompatible with Bush-era national "security" policies which posit nearly unlimited federal power. The OP's professed political views are simply incoherent.
It seems that 'limited government' proponents are focused on economics than anything else.
NeantHumain wrote:
Not to speak for minervx, but I think, when conservatives say "small government," they're talking about government that doesn't personally benefit them (as they see it). Keeping us safe from terror is something we all benefit from, so unlimited power in the name of stopping terrorism is warranted.
There are conservatives who are not in favor of small government. However, you are wrong about those that do favor small government. For example, while USAPATRIOT act renewals, which allow dangerous government powers like warrantless wiretapping, sailed through the Pelosi House with no problem, but were very nearly blocked by Tea Party Republicans in favor of small government.
ruveyn wrote:
People have the right to form associations freely...
... unless 2/3rds of the states ratify an amendment to the Constitution that removes tax-free status from all licensed businesses, and severely defines the term "Non-Profit" to only mean any business that does not make any profit at all.
Yes, religious institutions are businesses.
_________________
Fnord wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
People have the right to form associations freely...
... unless 2/3rds of the states ratify an amendment to the Constitution that removes tax-free status from all licensed businesses, and severely defines the term "Non-Profit" to only mean any business that does not make any profit at all.
Yes, religious institutions are businesses.
3/4 of the States.
ruveyn
psychohist wrote:
NeantHumain wrote:
Not to speak for minervx, but I think, when conservatives say "small government," they're talking about government that doesn't personally benefit them (as they see it). Keeping us safe from terror is something we all benefit from, so unlimited power in the name of stopping terrorism is warranted.
There are conservatives who are not in favor of small government. However, you are wrong about those that do favor small government. For example, while USAPATRIOT act renewals, which allow dangerous government powers like warrantless wiretapping, sailed through the Pelosi House with no problem, but were very nearly blocked by Tea Party Republicans in favor of small government.
The great bulk of the GOP always favors such provisions. I think you are referring to a handful of people well outside the mainstream of the Republican party, eg Rand Paul. There were just one or two on each side who spoke out against renewing the PATRIOT Act. The Democrats backed down on their opposition because a Democrat is in the White House now, and neither party worries about abuse of power when they wield it. The Republicans, curiously enough, seem to have no trouble with the PATRIOT Act even when they are supposed to be acting in their watchdog role as the opposition.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
NeantHumain wrote:
Orwell wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
minervx wrote:
I generally agree with conservatives on Bush-era national security policies, a strong national defense, a limited government with empowerment to the states and local government. But I am not religious and believe in seperation of church and state.
Anyone else like me?
Anyone else like me?
We did not have limited government under either the the Bush-s.
ruveyn
Not to mention that the notion of limited government is entirely incompatible with Bush-era national "security" policies which posit nearly unlimited federal power. The OP's professed political views are simply incoherent.
Not to speak for minervx, but I think, when conservatives say "small government," they're talking about government that doesn't personally benefit them (as they see it). Keeping us safe from terror is something we all benefit from, so unlimited power in the name of stopping terrorism is warranted. Collecting taxes only to hand out money to the lazy unemployed is just theft.
Yes. You spoke it well.
NeantHumain wrote:
Not to speak for minervx, but I think, when conservatives say "small government," they're talking about government that doesn't personally benefit them (as they see it).
Yes, this is what liberals and progressives have been saying for years and years. Conservatives are completely unprincipled.
_________________
"All valuation rests on an irrational bias."
-George Santayana
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS