RSSJust Be Honest, You’re NOT “Moderate”
Posted By: J.J. Jackson* on November 30, 2007
Forty-one percent (41%) of American voters say they are conservative when it comes to “fiscal issues such as taxes, government spending, and business regulation.” A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 43% consider themselves fiscally moderate and 12% say liberal.At the same time, 37% say they are conservative when it comes to “social issues like abortion, public prayer, and church-state topics.” On such social issues, 30% say they are moderate while 30% say liberal.
Let’s just be honest all you “moderates”. You’re liberal but won’t admit it.
Result: 41% are fiscally conservative and 55% are big government and big spending supporters. Just the “moderates” only want the money spent on themselves and the programs they benefit from. Just my take.
We’re doomed by the schizophrenic Americans who in one breath support liberty and in the next want to end it.
Contributor's website: http://www.libertyreborn.com
*Content posted by a user may not be completely written by that user. Content from another source is cited in either block quotes, with quotes or with a link to the original material. Content from other sites is posted for commentary and news purposes under fair use. Each user is responsible for their own postings and a particular posting should not be construed as being endorsed by this site or it's owner.
Comments
48 Responses to “Just Be Honest, You’re NOT “Moderate””
Loading ...
-
Recommended Reading:
-
Whats more “big government” than war? Stop pretending you’re a conservative.
So now you are saying the Founding Fathers were pro-big government? You must be since they gave the government the ability to declare war.
What’s more big government than war? How about nearly 70% of the budget going to “social” programs and flat out unconstitutional functions you DOLT!
Why do people who have nothing to say always want to comment? I suppose we should be happy for the people like “Free Trader” though. Keeps everyone informed as to what the uninformed have to say.
I wonder if “Free Trader” was also against he American Revolution, the war of 1812, the First and Second Barbary wars and of course World War II and on and on. All of which were fought for just causes. Or if he or she is one of those “War is never the answer” kumbayah dope smokers who think their brains are so big and everyone else is just dumb.
American Revolution, 1812, Barbary wars, WWII? Those were just. I’m not against war. I’m against taxes. I’m also against the social programs too.
Stop taxing me to fund this war.
Have you seen the price of ammo since the war began?
Oh, and the Iraq war isn’t just.
FreeTrader on December 1st, 2007 5:31 pm
“I’m against taxes.”
So you’re against the Constitution then since the power to tax is in there and you want a free ride. Nice to know.
And yes, the Iraq war is just. Wars against an aggressor who attacks his neighbors and then doesn’t abide by cease fire agreements makes it such.
If you think otherwise then you don’t think any war is justified.
FreeTrader is a treat. FT says WWII was a just war but Iraq is not.
WWII - A war of aggression by Axis powers in which the United States aided other countries attacked by Germany, Japan and Italy even before Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.
Iraq - A war of aggression by Iraq in which he invaded a sovereign nation and broke his ceasefire agreement while attacking aircraft belonging to the United States Air Force.
Not much difference except to a wacko.
LibertarianPrince on December 1st, 2007 6:25 pm
“Not much difference except to a wacko.”
If anything the Iraq War is more justified because it was perpetrated AFTER direct attacks on the United States military as you mentioned LibertarianPrince. Although I am of the mind set that wrongs seen must be righted and I agree with you that both were equally justified.
Sadly there are a lot of “wackos” out there doing everything they can to make life rough for my sons fighting in this war, who voluntarily joined to fight in this war, and who believe deeply in the cause.
As for his comments about being against “taxes” in general, that pretty much tells you where this freetrader character is coming from.
FreeTrader on December 1st, 2007 5:31 pm:
“Have you seen the price of ammo since the war began?”
Well, I just bought a box of .40 cal last week and paid only a slightly higher per as I did ten years ago. So I have and it is the same less inflation as far as I am concerned.
Of course, I should warn FreeTrader to stay on topic and not hijack a thread considering it is against the rules:
“Off topic comments are NOT allowed. If you think that you will comment on whatever floats your boat you will be banned. Comments must be on topic.”
There is a nice ling right under the “Submit” button for you to follow FreeTrader and read all about it.
This post, FYI is about the political leanings of Americans and NOT about the Iraq War, taxes OR the price of ammo.
You know what I find always so funny is how people like freetrader accuse Jeff of not being a conservative. Probably because he doesn’t agree with their views on the war by what I can gather from his first and consecutive posts.
Of course when asked to rate Jeff’s politics like his poll over at his main site Liberty Reborn, 38% rated him as Libertarian, 33% as Conservative and 22% as a Constitutionalist. That’s 93%! All of which are pretty much the same as “Conservative” when you drill down to it.
After more than 2,000 votes NOTHING else even came close. So perhaps it is Freetrader’s definition of “conservative” that is wrong? No. That can not possibly be? Right?
I’ll try my best to stay on topic:
Perhaps my definition of “conservative” is wrong.
Let’s instead use anti-war/pro-war, anti-taxation/pro-taxation, anti-spending/pro-spending, anti-big government/pro-big government.
If you’re pro-war, you have to tax and spend, and that government never expands like it does during times of war.
I totally agree with J.J. Jackson when he says “We’re doomed by the schizophrenic Americans who in one breath support liberty and in the next want to end it.”
Don’t tread on me.
FreeTrader on December 1st, 2007 7:25 pm:
“If you’re pro-war, you have to tax and spend, and that government never expands like it does during times of war.”
This statement makes little sense.
Some of the greatest expansions in spending came during times when there was no “war”. Social Security, Welfare, Food Stamps, and most of the federal spending we see today which comprises over 60% of the federal budget were mostly implemented in times of no war and in between wars.
The difference is that “war” is a constitutional function of government that the government is allowed to spend tax monies on whereas all the social programs are not.
LibertarianPrince on December 1st, 2007 7:33 pm:
“Some of the greatest expansions in spending came during times when there was no “war”. Social Security, Welfare, Food Stamps, and most of the federal spending we see today which comprises over 60% of the federal budget were mostly implemented in times of no war and in between wars.”
To quote PinguMama, “And BINGO was his name-o!”
You have to “tax and spend” on anything government does. Some things are however Constitutional.
For example, just because you don’t agree that a post road should be built in a specific place doesn’t mean you can say that government government should not be allowed to tax you for that post road. Because you don’t agree with it means nothing. That’s why we have a Representative Republican Democracy.
Same thing goes with war.
So you don’t mind increases in taxes and spending and the expansion of government as long as it’s constitutional.
I’m sorry, but that just isn’t conservative. It’s lawful, but not conservative.
And the United States of America are a federal constitutional republic.
Don’t tread on me.
FreeTrader on December 1st, 2007 7:53 pm
“So you don’t mind increases in taxes and spending and the expansion of government as long as it’s constitutional.
I’m sorry, but that just isn’t conservative. It’s lawful, but not conservative.”
Yet another non-sensical statement. If it is Constitutional then it IS NOT an “expansion of government”. The Constitution sets the boundaries of government so anything that is constitutional is legal and not expansion.
FreeTrader you are not making any sense as LibertarianPrince stated. It seems instead you are being argumentative.
Please be aware that being argumentative for the “sake of being argumentative” is considered trolling here and I have already asked you to read the rules. If you are not willing to abide by them then the next time you break them you will be punished.
LibertarianPrince on December 1st, 2007 8:31 pm
“Yet another non-sensical statement. If it is Constitutional then it IS NOT an “expansion of government”.”
Ouch. Hey, FreeTrader, I found your butt sitting over here by me after getting it kicked. Would you like it back?
Come on. These arguments you are putting forth are downright sophomoric. The regulars here are too smart and too well schooled to be beaten by such lowbrow arguments.
I’m not a huge fan of the Iraq war but I am just shaking my head here every time I read something by this FreeTrader dude.
Dude, you’re making very little sense.
Agreed. If the Constitution is the “law of the land”, and it is just read it, then anything in it allows is legal and not an expansion of anything.
Congress passing McCain-Feingold = expansion of government.
Congress declaring war on Iraq, the President fighting said war and Congress appropriating money for the war = not an expansion of government
Most “conservatives” that are pro the war on terror/Iraq are more “conservative” than those that are anti the war on terror/Iraq.
Being conservative means that you believe in the inalienable rights of mankind and their right to pursue them. America secured help from many nations in our quest for liberty and independence and there is no reason not to return that favor to others that ask when their cause is just. And it is just in Iraq unless you believe that certain people for whatever reason be it the color of their skin or the place where they live are not as equal as the rest of us.
RonniesRayGun on December 1st, 2007 7:38 pm:
“just because you don’t agree that a post road should be built in a specific place doesn’t mean you can say that government government should not be allowed to tax you for that post road. Because you don’t agree with it means nothing. That’s why we have a Representative Republican Democracy.”
Well put Ron. The Constitution spells out what government can and cannot do with tax dollars. Some have bastardized portions like the General Welfare clause however to justify almost anything that can be imagined, but some things are so clear as to be specifically spelled out that there is no doubt. And those items are there whether you like it or not.
To be perfectly honest I’m still not sure what this enter comments thread is about. I’m just winging it because the arguments seem so off the wall.
If the number of federal government employees increases, the dollar amount raised by taxes increases, and the dollar amount spent by the govenrment increases, you’re government has expanded.
It has expanded in size.
Just because it didn’t violate any provision of the Constitution doesn’t mean the governement didn’t expand. It just means the government didn’t expand in scope. Think about it, the federal government could triple the number of its employees without violating the Constitution.
There are people here who don’t mind expanding the size of the federal government, and doing so would be perfectly Constitutional.
It just isn’t Conservative. And in the spirit of the blog post title, just be honest, you’re not Conservative.
But to be fair, “Conservative” has lost its meaning anyway. The same thing happened to the word “gay”.
So maybe I’m wrong and you guys are Conservative, whatever that means.
Don’t tread on me.
Sounds to me FreeTrader like you are trying to chose the definition you want in order to justify your argument.
Where as the argument put forth by others here that if one doesn’t violate the Constituition one doesn’t expand the government makes more sense from a logical standpoint.
The government is given certain powers by we the people. Some times the government doesn’t do anything with those powers or act upon them, but they are still in the hands of the government. When the government decides to act on them they have not expanded as you claim.
Judging by the myriad of responses here, your opinion about what is and is not “conservative” is a minority view. That doesn’t make it wrong on its face however. What makes it wrong is that the view is based on a poorly contrived definition that really doesn’t hold water.
BoeingMech on December 3rd, 2007 6:35 pm
“The government is given certain powers by we the people. Some times the government doesn’t do anything with those powers or act upon them, but they are still in the hands of the government. When the government decides to act on them they have not expanded as you claim.”
Yet another excellent point and one that makes me proud of the people that come here. We have decided as a nation what powers government has and does not have. When government acts on those powers and does what we have asked them to do it is not an expansion of government.
FreeTrader seems fixated on the cost of the action rather than whether or not the action is a just function of government. I suppose that is a convenient way to look at it when you don’t like something that the government does such as act upon its just duty to send troops to war. But it is really just a hollow argument because all things have a cost and over time that cost increases due to simple economics. So focusing on the cost is a flawed way to look at things.
FreeTrader on December 3rd, 2007 7:53 am:
“So maybe I’m wrong and you guys are Conservative, whatever that means.”
You have no idea how wrong you are. So far the only thing you seem to want to take issue with is that most people that have responded to you believe in the Constitution and that while you don’t think you should be taxed to fund a war you disagree with you have to admit that we the people (yourself included) have given the government the power to do it. And that most of us including vets like RRG, OOhrahman, Sgt. Shammy, etc are very pro-Iraq war because they believe in the unalienable rights of mankind.
Your arguments are convoluted and, quite frankly, very typical of the anti-war conservatives that pop in here every now and again, realize that they are a minority and shuttle off eventually.
So far you have yet to, however, actually make any real argument against this not being a conservative site when Jeff regularly posts about conservative topics (and many of us agree with)such as out of control spending, UNCONSTITUTIONAL spending, support for freedom of speech, press, assembly, the right to freely contract, the right to keep and bear arms in defense, and so on.
You haven’t done much to venture outside of this thread and comment on many other topics along these lines since this thread started. Why? Don’t be afraid to agree with people on something.
You are focused on ONE issue where you disagree with almost everyone here and refuse to get off it in order to meander around an argument that no one else here is buying.
Well, maybe I can shed some light on this and give my opinion. You know, considering that I AM a recovering liberal.
I’m reading this thread and looking at it purely from the point of view that makes the most sense to me. To me, as someone that is quickly becoming more and more conservative here is what I think. “logically” of course
The Constitution exists. Within it are powers. Those powers are the limit of our government. When those powers are exceeded, government is “expanded” but only when those powers are exceeded. Certain powers are, at times, pocketed. If they weren’t we would have always been in a constant state of war since our founding since war is one of the powers of the government.
I simply cannot agree with you FreeTrader with your definition of what is the “expansion of government”. The other arguments make infinitely more sense.
As for wondering if these guys really are conservatives? Well I think if you have to wonder too hard you might trick yourself into being too smart by half.
These guys especially Jeff put the “standard bearers” of Conservativism like Limbaugh to shame.
With thousands of “conservative” posts Mr. Jackson’s conservativeness is not in question.
With hundreds of “conservative” responses each, Pingu’s, Ron’s, Sham’s, Krammer’s, Red Tornado’s and LibertarianPrince’s conservativeness is not in question.
But with few posts and only statements about one’s own conservativeness, someone else’s is.
Obeying the Constitution makes someone lawful, not necessarily conservative.
We should strive to conserve the sound dollar, the federal republic and the rights and freedom of citizens of this county.
If you believe the founder’s intent was to build the empire we have today, with the dollar we have today, and with the bureaucracy we have today, then you’re conserving something I’m not.
So I don’t deny you’re a conservative. But you can’t deny I’m a conservative.
All we need now is for the socialists to start calling themselves conservatives.
George Orwell was right when he said political chaos is connected with the decay of language.
Don’t tread on me.
FreeTrader on December 4th, 2007 8:47 pm:
“Obeying the Constitution makes someone lawful, not necessarily conservative.”
So what exactly then in the constitution do you consider unconservative? That is basically what your argument boils down to.
The constitution when taken as it is meant (and not as it is bastardized) is the ultimate “conservative” document in that it limits government’s scope to just functions and embraces individual liberty. To say that following it doesn’t make one “conservative” means that you find something non-conservative about that.
I concur LP. The Constitution is a truly conservative document. Adhering to it and believing in it does indeed go a long way towards making one a conservative. Are there other sources from which conservatives could draw inspiration and insight? Yes. But they work in concert.
My opinion? FreeTrader wants so much to be right but doesn’t know how to get there.
You have to admire FreeTrader’s sticktoitness. But from where I stand it borders on pysho-babble.
Those last comments on the Constitution I think are a final desperate plea to redefine “conservativism” as something that he wants it to be in order to continue commenting. If the Constitution isn’t a conservative document then it has to be something else. Liberal perhaps? Maybe to an anarchist.
If FreeTrader is actually winning any converts here, speak up. Because I’d love to know if he is convincing anyone of anything.
RonniesRayGun on December 4th, 2007 9:33 pm:
“If FreeTrader is actually winning any converts here, speak up. Because I’d love to know if he is convincing anyone of anything.”
Certainly not me. He seems to drift and isn’t coherent from comment to comment simply poo-pooing anything that doesn’t comport to his ideas.
Not I Ron. I’m not even sure what his overall point is anymore. All I’m certain of is that in every comment he will find something to disagree with no mater how sound.
He’s doing a philosopher thingy it almost seems.
He certainly isn’t convincing me. But then again, the constant “why” argument has never really played well with me either and that just seems to be where he is going with the how to define a conservative line of commenting.
Constitution is a conservative document so following it would make one a conservative.
So anyone? I ask again.
I think he’s gone off the deep end. His last comment was just disjointed like when he talk of “All we need now is for the socialists to start calling themselves conservatives.”
Huh? I know, it makes no sense in the context of the discussion because no one here says simply calling one’s self a conservative makes it true. People have even pointed out that it is a continual espousal of conservative ideas and actions that are conservative that make one conservative.
I guess all I can say is whatever he is smoking it must be good.
At least FreeTrader is singing a different tune now.
Now:
“So I don’t deny you’re a conservative.”
Originally:
“Stop pretending you’re a conservative.”
That’s why he’s not convincing anyone of anything. People read his initial and typical Tourettes Syndrome response and have decided that he’s not much worth listening too. Plus his statements are easily disputed and like PM pondered simply argumentative.
Yes Red. It is very difficult to take someone that opens with such a barrage at all seriously. Trader starts out questioning the conservativism of Jeff and others and then says that his conservatism cannot be questioned? How utterly hypocritical.
We dissect people who claim to be “conservative” here daily. However the difference is that we cite actually reasons why they are not conservative such as exceeding the bounds of the Constitution and good government, wealth redistribution, and so on as proof.
I believe that since Trader has changed his tune that if anything can be said of the exchange here, that he has conceded ground.
Obeying the constitution does not qualify one as a conservative. There is much more to conservatism than the 200 year old document. The traditions espoused by conservatism are much older.
Is the constitution a conservative document. Yes, generally.
Are the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth admentments conservative? No, they’re pretty radical.
I said it above and I’ll say it again, allowing your government to grow enormous is NOT conservative, whether constitutional or not. If you disagree with this, then we simply disagree on what conservatism is.
It is dishonest to say that because it’s constitutional, it’s not expansion. If the number of federal employees has doubled, the size of your federal government has expanded. And if you don’t think that’s a threatens your liberty, you’re fooling yourselves.
My point has never wavered, and I’ll repeat it again: Just Be Honest, You’re NOT “Conservative”
Don’t tread on me.
FreeTrader, you are now doing nothing more than spinning and ranting.
“Obeying the constitution does not qualify one as a conservative.”
As already stated, the Constitution is an embodiment of Conservatism. So far everyone but you seems to be on that page. Maybe it is time you reevaluate your “reasoning”. Because you aren’t winning any converts.
“There is much more to conservatism than the 200 year old document. The traditions espoused by conservatism are much older.”
I think SOMEONE already said that. Do you read the comments people post in response to your rants or do you chose to ignore them out of convenience?
“Are the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth admentments conservative? No, they’re pretty radical.”
No. What you are doing is picking out parts of the Constitution that you don’t particularly like and claiming that they are not “conservative”. However when these amendments you cite are examined the truth is that they do not violate any conservative principle.
16th Amendment sets forth a law on taxation of income. Conservatives believe that taxes are necessary to maintain a government. Maybe you do not agree with the taxation of income, but that disagreement doesn’t make the amendment not conservative.
The 17th Amendment dictates how representatives in Congress are chosen. Would I personally prefer that the Senators remained appointed by the States? Sure, but the free election of representatives is still a conservative principle and not unconservative as you claim.
The 18th Amendment is not active law anymore you dolt! It was repealed! So it is not part of the Constitution!
“I said it above and I’ll say it again, allowing your government to grow enormous is NOT conservative, whether constitutional or not.”
Yes, we know you like to repeat yourself. But your thought process is so flawed that it cannot stand up to any test. Doing the basic functions of government require funding and manpower. Your assertion is too carte blanche to hold up. Sometimes you have to grow the size of government (i.e. money and man power) to do things. When war breaks out you have to spend more on weapons and increase the size of your military for example.
Like I said, your thought process is flawed.
“If you disagree with this, then we simply disagree on what conservatism is.”
Sad. No, what people here are disagreeing with is your poorly cobbled together arguments which poster after poster has continually refuted and you refuse to acknowledge.
“It is dishonest to say that because it’s constitutional, it’s not expansion. If the number of federal employees has doubled, the size of your federal government has expanded. And if you don’t think that’s a threatens your liberty, you’re fooling yourselves.”
See previous comments about how this analogy and thought is clearly wrong.
“My point has never wavered, and I’ll repeat it again: Just Be Honest, You’re NOT “Conservative””
There you go again, when you can no longer take the heat resort to your original and disproven premise. The left could use someone like you to carry their water since you like to adhere to fallacies and resort to simply shouting the same idiocy over and over when you don’t win.
FreeTrader on December 5th, 2007 2:10 pm:
“My point has never wavered, and I’ll repeat it again: Just Be Honest, You’re NOT “Conservative””
Is that your final answer now that you have changed your mind yet again?
I need to know. Because you are treading into troll category by returning to THAT old canard.
An incredible rebuttal to an unremarkable post Hotty. You are yet the latest to get the best of Trader.
Trader’s inconsistency continues:
Now:
“My point has never wavered, and I’ll repeat it again: Just Be Honest, You’re NOT “Conservative””
Last:
“So I don’t deny you’re a conservative.”
Originally:
“Stop pretending you’re a conservative.”
Medication is in order.
Insanity is marked by doing the same thing over and over and hoping for a different result.
To see it in action just wait for FreeTrader’s next post, same as the last post, with nothing new to say.
Geezus. Why even respond trader if you aren’t going to make a serious effort? When asked what was non-conservative about the Constitution all you can do is cite 2 amendments you don’t like (but don’t support your argument) and one that was repealed?
For as mighty as you seem to think you are, you are out of your league here.
Oohrahman on December 5th, 2007 6:21 pm:
“Geezus. Why even respond trader if you aren’t going to make a serious effort?”
I hear ya bro! Semper Fi!
It’s like every time I get his new comment via email I think why does he even bother? Hotty’s response was great, but to be honest anyone here could have given just as good of one had we not been beaten to the punch.
Now I just wonder what new, same spin he is going to wrap his next comments in.
I’m sure he’ll state once again how the Constitution has nothing to do with conservativism and probably even make a horrid attempt at telling us why the 16th, 17th and 18th amendments really aren’t conservative. Then someone will shoot him down. He’ll come back and try again. Someone else will shoot him down. He’ll come back again …