Hi All

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Hi All

Postby Beelzebob » Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:59 am

I have been lurking for a month or so and finally decided to join. I am all over the place on different issues ranging from Liberal, Libertarian and conservative right wing. My stance on a issue usually forms on what will maximise liberty/freedom and minimize government intrusion into our lives.

Some quotes from Barry Goldwater who represents what true conservatives should stand for and what is what I believe when I say I am conservative on some things. When I say I am a right wing conservative on some issues it is his positions I am in agreement with which many liberals and libertarians would be in agreement on many too. I was suprised how much I agreed with him on so many issues when I first started reading about him. Whether you agree with him or not he is the type of no nonsense speak the unvarnished truth you get what you see type of politician that we need more of and are lacking in this day and age





Goldwater on traditional conservatism---"The positive role of limited government has always been the defense of these fundamental principles. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please, as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process."

Now those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth, and let me remind you they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyranny.


On Government

"I am a conservative Republican, but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process."




The Conservative looks upon politics as the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. The Conservative is the first to understand that the practice of freedom requires the establishment of order: it is impossible for one man to be free if another is able to deny him the exercise of his freedom. But the Conservative also recognizes that the polical power on which order is based is a self-aggrandizing force; that its appetite grows with eating.



[T]he Conservative's first concern will always be: Are we maximizing freedom?

The founding fathers had a reason for endorsing the principle of limited government; and this reason recommends defense of the constitutional scheme even to those who take their citizenship obligations lightly. The reason is simple, and it lies at the heart of the Conservative philosophy.
Throughout history, government has proved to be the chief instrument for thwarting man's liberty. Government represents power in the hands of some men to control and regulate the lives of other men. And power, as Lord Acton said, corrupts men, "Absolute power," he added, "corrupts absolutely,"

State power, considered in the abstract, need not restrict freedom: but absolute state power always does. The legitimate functions of government are actually conducive to freedom. Maintaining internal order, keeping foreign foes at bay, administering justice, removing obstacles to the free interchange of goods--the exercise of these powers makes it possible for men to follow their chosen pursuits with maximum freedom. But note that the very instrument by which these desirable ends are achieved can be the instrument for achieving undesirable ends--that government can, instead of extending freedom, restrict freedom. And note, secondly, that the "can" quickly becomes "will" the moment the holders of government power are left to their own devices. This is because of the corrupting influence of power, the natural tendency of men who possess some power to take unto themselves more power. The tendency leads eventually to the acquisition of all power--whether in the hands of one or many makes little difference to the freedom of those left on the outside.

Government does not have an unlimited claim on the earnings of individuals. One of the foremost precepts of the natural law is man's right to the possession and the use of his property. And a man's earnings are his property as much as his land and the house in which he lives. Indeed, in the industrial age, earnings are probably the most prevalent form of property.

This attack on property rights is actually an attack on freedom. It is another instance of the modern failure to take into account the whole man. How can a man be truly free if he is denied the means to exercise freedom? How can he be free if the fruits of his labor are not his to dispose of, but are treated, instead, as part of a common pool of public wealth? Property and freedom are inseparable: to the extent government takes the one in the form of taxes, it intrudes on the other.

The size of the government's rightful claim--that is, the total amount it may take in taxes--will be determined by how we define the "legitimate functions of government." With regard to the federal government, the


“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ``needed'' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests,'' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”





On religion


I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass






"When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."


"Well, I've spent quite a number of years carrying the flag of the 'Old Conservatism.' And I can say with conviction that the religious issues of these groups have little or nothing to do with conservative or liberal politics. The uncompromising position of these groups is a divisive element that could tear apart the very spirit of our representative system, if they gain sufficient strength."


"The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others," { he said,} "unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives. . . We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn't stop now" { he insisted}. "To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic."


I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in ‘A,’ ‘B,’ ‘C,’ and ‘D.’ Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of ‘conservatism.’”


"I don't have any respect for the Religious Right. There is no place in this country for practicing religion in politics. That goes for Falwell, Robertson and all the rest of these political preachers. They are a detriment to the country."

social issues


You don’t have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.


"A lot of so-called conservatives today don't know what the word means. They think I've turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to a pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the religious right."


"There has always been homosexuality, ever since man and woman were invented. I guess there were gay apes. So that's not an issue. The Republican Party should stand for freedom and only freedom. Don't raise hell about the gays, the Blacks and the Mexicans. Free people have a right to do as they damn well please."




To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable.
Beelzebob
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:15 pm
Location: Shredding a wave
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:47 pm

Welcome, Beelzebob. I think most of the members here consider themselves progressive (not necessarily Dem) or Libertarian. Can't say that I recall anyone admitting they were Conservative. I think most ARE anti-war, but that's just ...er..coincidence. :o
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:49 pm

But it is odd to see how "moderate" Goldwater looks today. :shock:
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:09 pm

What, no bites yet? I can't believe it.
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Beelzebob » Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:51 pm

chiggerbit wrote:But it is odd to see how "moderate" Goldwater looks today. :shock:


Goldwater was a conservative icon for decades until the religious right started to take over the Republican Party in the 1980s. Soon, his opinions on various topics were so far to the left of the "New Right" that many believed that he was becoming more liberal, when he hadn't actually changed his views at all.

He despised the religous right like Falwell and Robertson and considered them a detriment to this country as I do.
I'm sickened by all religions. Religion has divided people. I don't think there's any difference between the pope wearing a large hat and parading around with a smoking purse and an African painting his face white and praying to a rock.
Beelzebob
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:15 pm
Location: Shredding a wave
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Beelzebob » Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:03 pm

chiggerbit wrote:Welcome, Beelzebob. I think most of the members here consider themselves progressive (not necessarily Dem) or Libertarian. Can't say that I recall anyone admitting they were Conservative. I think most ARE anti-war, but that's just ...er..coincidence. :o


Thanks for the welcome

As I said my views are varied and all over the political spectrum but the one defining characteristic that shapes my views is "are we maximising freedom". I hate the far right Neo Nazi scumbags views as I do far left Stalinist scumbags views but I will shout at the top of my lungs defending their right to speak their ideas no matter how much I disagree with them.
I'm sickened by all religions. Religion has divided people. I don't think there's any difference between the pope wearing a large hat and parading around with a smoking purse and an African painting his face white and praying to a rock.
Beelzebob
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:15 pm
Location: Shredding a wave
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Et in Arcadia ego » Thu Dec 06, 2007 10:09 pm

chiggerbit wrote:What, no bites yet? I can't believe it.


The Lounge doesn't garner nearly as much hits as Open Discussion.
"but I do know that you should remove my full name from your sig. Dig?" - Unnamed, Super Scary Persun, bbrrrrr....
User avatar
Et in Arcadia ego
 
Posts: 4104
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:06 pm
Location: The Void
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Beelzebob » Thu Dec 06, 2007 10:39 pm

et in Arcadia ego wrote:
chiggerbit wrote:What, no bites yet? I can't believe it.


The Lounge doesn't garner nearly as much hits as Open Discussion.


I noticed that. It seems all discussions are concentrated there
I'm sickened by all religions. Religion has divided people. I don't think there's any difference between the pope wearing a large hat and parading around with a smoking purse and an African painting his face white and praying to a rock.
Beelzebob
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:15 pm
Location: Shredding a wave
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to The Lounge & Member News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests