THANK YOU!!! 
Someone finally said it. I wasn't going to get involved with this post, but the OP should really read some of the threads/posts and topics on this forum and then understand where we stand. 
It's pretty clear where you stand. Small government and tax cuts is about all you guys care about. Even though I'm a social conservative through and through that believes we need to do a lot more to win the War on Terror, I'm considered some sort of heretic because I don't buy into the libertarian economic dogma. As I said before, there's a diverse group of people here, but you all have the same thing in common: you think that those who don't buy into Friedmanite economics don't belong here. That's why everyone thinks I'm not a true conservative, even though when guys like Friedman came about in the 60s people thought they were crazy radicals.
Aren`t you a clever little one,you seem to think that you can espouse what borders on Marxisim and by calling it conservative it is.
Wrong.
Yes,yes it does...get rid of government handouts and programs then no more taxes are needed,can`t grasp any part of that you are not at all conservative.
You have not even the first clue what the Libertarian party stands for or are just a liar...my guess the latter.
Paulism is a blight on the body politic,it is the fantasy equivalent of Socialism,most here know that and a little research on your part would have found that.
Well isn`t that just quaint.
I do though and as a Christian understand that the first amendment wasn`t to to abandon religion or Christianity but not proscribe a particular one.
You should have spent some of your recent college time studying the intent of the founders.
You are in my opinion a troll pretending to be a conservative,you have no rational thought process and that is demonstrated by your random and contradictory outbursts.
Wow. So you think that taxes are borderline Marxist? Taxes for the wealthy were much higher during the 40s, 50s, and 60s. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't mind if they went back to those levels. Do you think we were a Marxist state back then? Someone has to pay for the deficits racked up by Bush and Obama and for the War on Terror, and I think right now the wealthy are the only ones that can afford to. And I think it will especially be necessary when the socialist revolution starts gaining steam. They will gain popularity by pointing to how much more the wealthy have than they used to (back before the 80s). Without a return to the type of society we had in the 50s and early 60s, socialism will become a real possibility when this depression starts kicking in. Oh, and by the way, the bailouts come from Bernanke, who is a modern-day version of your beloved Milton Friedman. He did is dissertation on Friedman's work on the Great Depression, and his ideas are right out of Friedman's book.
As for the Libertarians, from what it sounds like, you guys share a lot of their views on economics. Though (I'm hoping) you guys differ from them on social issues, individual rights, and foreign policy, you seem to have the same economic views. Smaller government and less taxes, especially for the wealthy, are always the answer, and if you disagree, than you're a Marxist. Even though I am staunch social conservative who believes in a much stronger military, you guys all think I'm completely ideologically opposed to you because of a few disagreements on economic issues (which I've said time and time again, doesn't matter all that much to me, it's an issue of practicality, not ideology, and I think our culture and foreign policy are much more important than our economy). To me you guys sound like Libertarians. I'm the one that despises Friedmanite libertarianism, I think it has too much influence in the Republican party. They're defecting now, but I don't see how you guys are fundamentally different on economic issues, other than that since the Libertarian party is a small party it is more radical in its laissez-faire economic principles.
As for my beliefs, I've been pretty clear in what I believe, and no one is really listening. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean that my beliefs are 'irrational' or 'incoherent.'
And as far as the 1st Amendment goes, I very well understand what the founding fathers meant. I just think they got it wrong. They wrote in a time of atheism (before the great revival in the late 18th century), and they didn't realize how important religion would be to this country. We are a Christian nation, whether or not the Constitution says so.
EPA and OSHA make it impossible to see Nixon as anything other than a liberal republican.
Ford at least told New York to drop dead when it purposely destroyed its economy.
Yes, as I said before, the modern day Republicans have become far more libertarian on economic issues. That worked in the heyday of neoliberalism and the global credit glut, but now that we're in the beginning of a Depression with a socialist revolution around the corner, we're going to have to be a little more realistic.
Well.....earlier, you used Japan as an example, and the Imperialist prewar leaders of that country used that exact philosophy.........it didn't end well for them, did it.
So let me see if I have this straight........you believe that if some individual has the brains and tenacity to make him/herself a billionaire, that wealth should be stripped from that person and used for "more important purposes"? Have I got that right? Then continuing,
It sounds to me like your "socialist revolution" has already begun (theoretically) by the thrust of your own words..........if stripping the wealth of those who earned it, and using it for "other purposes", as well as "pandering to the proletariat", is your concept of conservatism, we are eons apart, politically.....
Goodness.......prickly little prole, our new revolutionary..........this sounds very similar to the drivel spouted by Islamic radicals........I think I can speak for the bulk of us, that we stand for the rule of law, regardless of how perverted it may have become, our concept of change must lie within its boundaries.
I'm gonna take a SWAG, and classify you as a rather young and naive person, that has been exposed to just enough education to be dangerous......unfortunately untempered by experience, common sense, and wisdom.......
doc
Considering how small and underdeveloped Japan was, they did pretty well for themselves, didn't they? Anyways, you're comparing two entirely different scenarios. The US is the largest economy in the world and the world's superpower. We can be an empire, and we already are (though not doing a very good job of it at the moment). But thanks to liberal society, there's a real lack of resolve in pursuing these national goals.
If you think that raising taxes for the wealthy back to their 1990s levels, or even their 1970s levels, is a "socialist revolution" than you're in for a real bad day in a few years when the real socialist revolution comes about. We need to work more towards the society we had in the 1950s and early 1960s as far as economic policy goes if we don't want a revolution. And stop turning taxes into an ideological debate. It's not one of ideology, it's one of practicality. There are already taxes on the wealthy, and they are taxed a higher portion of their income than the poor in just about any country in the world. The question is how much more, and I'm sure none of you could come to an exact agreement on this. So does that mean the guy that thought they should be taxed 6% instead of 5% is some kind of heretical Marxist? That he is infringing on their right to make money? But all I was saying is that I don't really care if someone who is making 1.2 billion dollars right now gets a tax hike and only makes 1.05 billion dollars. They aren't at the top of my priority list right now. Do you know what is? Cleaning up American culture, fighting the War on Terror, and paying off the deficits.
As for your remarks on the rule of law and Islamic countries, it's pretty clear that the rule of law isn't getting things done right now, and that's going to become very clear in the next few years to come as the Depression really kicks in to full swing. And anyways, how can you talk about the rule of law at a time like this? When millions of unborn children are killed every year? While our culture slowly disintegrates and we lose the very values that make life worth living, all in the name of liberalism, individual freedoms, and profit?
Goodness.....
"The Golden Era??? Which includes:
The Great Depression
World War Two
The Korean Conflict
And two recessions
I would suggest that you retake that history class......this must be what passes for modern education in American history.....I want a refund on my property taxes....
doc
I included the 1930s because that was when the Golden Generation got through the Great Depression without a socialist revolution. It was one of the most traumatic times in American history. But they were tough and knew the meaning of sacrifice, and the same people were all willing to give their life in service of their country during World War II. As far as World War II goes, how can you not include that? That was the beginning of our Golden Age! We won that war and emerged from it for the first time as the World's undisputed superpower! It got our economy going to unprecedented levels of activity after its worst depression and modernized the state and military at an extremely rapid pace. It was the greatest event in American history. As for the Korean conflict, we didn't win it because China joined the war, but the public was still recovering from World War II and wasn't willing to fully commit on it. Remember, this was right at the beginning of the Cold War, before people knew of the importance of stopping the spread of communism. As for the two recessions, there's going to be a couple recessions if you look at a few decades, but the period from 1945-1965 saw the greatest growth rates in our history even while we paid down the highest debt in our history (and afterwards had big surpluses), and we were the undisputed economic power of the world. On top of that, the family unit was still intact, we still were religious, and society hadn't descended into liberal moral relativism (that begin in the 1960s). So yeah, it was our golden era. When people talk about a return to old-fashioned, American values, what do you think they're referring to?
And Carl knocks one out of the park!!! 
Did you actually PASS your American History class?? Teddy Roosevelt was the beginning of modern day Progressivism..... sheesh....
If you can actually comprehend what you read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt
Teddy Roosevelt also marked the beginning of our expansionary foreign policy, and he was a true warrior. He's also Harvey Mansfield's favorite American political leader, so I don't need to hear that he's not a true conservative. His policies, that were considered "progressive" at the time, would not be considered so at all now. He wanted to break up the big monopolies that existed back then and slightly improved workers' rights (which was necessary at the time to keep socialism from becoming a serious force). During that age of total laissez-faire capitalism (which corresponded to the time, it was obsolete long ago), even George W. Bush would look like a progressive.
oh, for heaven's sake. why are we still feeding this guy? every reply he makes increases his google index score because he put his silly little blog URL in his sig.
I quit reading his shit when I saw the phrase "economic egalitarianism". first of all, it's redundant. second of all, it makes it clear that this little princess just had his first few classes in philosophy 101, and suddenly thinks that he understands the world.
somebody needs a hobby. or a girlfriend. or a phukpuppet. but he definitely needs something.
Economic egalitarianism is 'redundant?' Can you read? How do the definitions economic and egalitarian have anything to do with each other? Economic egalitarianism refers to the idea that we should redistribute wealth for redistribution's sake, because everyone deserves the same. It's a dangerous idea, one at the heart of socialism. Second, I never took any Philosophy courses, only Political Philosophy. If you haven't taken the time to read what I've said than why bother commenting on it?
Curtis.....you will simply have to forgive me for "cherry picking" your posts, however, they are far too uninteresting to really read in their entirety......speaking of reading, the reason that I'm sorta piecemealing this is that I'm in the middle of The History of the English Speaking Proples, by Winston Churchill, and I find it far more fascinating than your rambling, somewhat incoherent posts.....you DID suggest that I should broaden my reading interests, didn't you?
However, I couldn't let this gem pass unchallenged:
It looks like you failed World History as well as the American version......since you are such an authority on Japan, you should know that the native Japanese are over 90% either Shinto, Taoist, or Buddist, and as a people they are deeply religious......not unlike us, it is rooted in their culture.
They may not be Christian, but they are far from atheist.....
Care to try again?
doc
Well I'm sorry I'm not as good of a writer as Winston Churchill. As for your Japan comment, first of all, I was responding to Mrs. Smith's claim that only 'Christian' capitalist economies do well, and I was mentioning successful non-Christian economies. I take it that you agree with her then? If not, than why bother responding to such a minor detail within the midst of all this discussion? Second, you're wrong again. First of all, Shintoism, Taoism, and Buddhism (at least Zen Buddhism, which is what the Japanese practice) are ALL atheistic religions. They don't believe in a 'God' (from the Greek theos) the way we do. They believe in spirits, especially of animals and their ancestors, but they are non-theistic religions. Second, most people in Japan are nominally Buddhist or Shinto but don't actually believe in it. I've had this confirmed to me by SEVERAL Japanese people. They do it because they identify with it as a part of their culture, history, and tradition. It has a lot more to do with tradition than actual belief. If you ask most Japanese if they actually believe in spirits or the utility of their rituals, they'll tell you it's all a bunch of superstition. But they do it anyway because it's a part of who they are.
I have a thing for Scandinavian culture. You are absolutely right, many non-religious are conservative. Religion and being conservative is correlated, but not strongly.
Again, I never said that you had to be religious to be conservative. Thor pulled that out of his ass.
