Ephedrine found in animal meds. Where is ephedrine found. Ephedrine phpbb forum. Homemade ephedrine. Who sells ephedrine diet pills. How to make ephedrine. How to make meth from ephedrine hcl….

Soma prescription medicine. Soma….

Debates on ritalin. Brain effects of ritalin. Ritalin. Why is ritalin over prescribed for adhd….

Zolpidem and sleepwalking. Zolpidem overdose. Zolpidem….

Rape sex….

Oxycodone extraction….

Animal sex….

Lortab prescription online. Lortab 10. Lortab detox….

What does duromine look like. Duromine picture. Duromine….

Soma without rx. Soma online sales. Soma. Buy domain onlinevcvpl soma. Cheapest soma. Soma online next day. Akane soma….

Cheap soma….

Browncoatone on November 16, 2009 at 9:34 AM

Yup. that’s the point I was trying to make, but from the other direction. The more government stays out of people’s lives and livelihoods, the more space there is for them to define and pursue their goals (including but by no means limited to spiritual ones). Both intrusive Liberal and intrusive social conservative agendas impinge noxiously on that private sphere of activity in which liberty (and, if your metaphysics incline you thus, salvation) thrive.

Not surprising that a fellow Browncoat would see this so clearly (“can’t take the sky from me” and all that).

Social conservatives “criminalize” the behavior of the poor to keep them in…poverty.

uknowmorethanme on November 16, 2009 at 9:57 AM

What behavior is that? Theft? Dealing drugs?

Are you claiming that those behaviors are the only way the ‘poor’ can get out of poverty?????

Are you trying claim that good old fashioned ways of getting out of poverty – getting an education and working hard are somehow “criminalized” for the poor?

Let’s see, Education – controlled by the left through the NEA – yeah they’re doing a bang up job of educating the children.

What are you talking about?

There is an obvious and well-founded moral argument against Liberalism:

“Thou shalt not covet”

It mystifies my why conservatives have not endeavored to explain this and clarify the concept with examples.

landlines on November 16, 2009 at 10:52 AM

Because they will turn it around and point at my stack of money.

“Thou shalt not covet”

It mystifies my why conservatives have not endeavored to explain this and clarify the concept with examples.

Social conservatives “criminalize” the behavior of the poor to keep them in…poverty. Poor people go to jail for much less than rich or even middle class people. I think embezzlement is worse than selling crack… “Tough on crime” nonsense is just as class warfare as “Tax the Rich” so you have to be careful, considering the majority of criminalized behavior is not criminal at all.

It’s a slippery slope for both.

However, you must define social conservatism, because as I know it now (banned abortions, banned drugs, banned homosexual marriage, mandatory sentences, no parole, etc) it’s the opposite of limited gov’t, it’s the same goals as social liberalism but just the opposite philosophy, but either way the Gov’t is legislating something it has no business doing.

You want to make this argument? Make it about State’s rights, then we will have somewhere else to go. If they want to ban cocaine in Montana but not in Florida..fine. If they want to allow gays to marry in Cali, but not in Virginia…fine. If they want to allow abortions in Connecticut but ban them in Texas…fine. That’s how the founders envisioned the country.

It’s sad, but the mythical “Blue Dog Democrat” is about the ideal candidate.

If you want the libs to take their crap elsewhere, social conservatives need to take their crap elsewhere too and let people live how they want, no matter if you approve of their behavior or not.

Social liberals had it right before it all went to hell via the New Deal, Medicare, etc. True Social liberals believe the Gov’t needs to go the f*ck away, which is exactly what fiscal conservatives belive.

Collectivist agriculture yields starvation, the trillion-dollar War on Poverty produces more poverty, political control of industries crashes those industries… and yet, it’s always Day One of the great socialist experiment, and no one has every hit on the brilliant idea of making the “rich” pay their “fair share” to fund a government crusade against want.

Yes, exactly!

Isn’t about time that we can declare the ‘great socialist experiment’ a failure?

Scientifically speaking, If you ran the same experiment in a large number of places under vastly different conditions and time periods and got the SAME result each time.

You should be able to definitive declare that the hypothesis that Socialism will ALWAYS fail to be correct.

WITHOUT HAVING TO RUN THE SAME EXPERIMENT, AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN…

I say it’s about time we say enough with the same stupid ideas that are marketed under new names each time and always fail miserably.

Doctor Zero on November 16, 2009 at 8:14 AM

Social Conservatives did ban homosexuality, they did ban work on Sunday, and it wasn’t oil workers and cowboys pushing legislation against whiskey and nightingales. And yes, in my state, public nudity is legal (with some exceptions) and the only people bothering to oppose it are biblethumpers. Oh, and in my state, prayer in school isn’t just disallowed, in some districts X-mas decorations on school lockers can get you expelled.

But that’s not really the point. If you push lower taxes or less government interference you can make common ground with those that don’t keep with your faith. If you push your religion you alienate those that could have been your allies. If you declare “my religion or get out” then you make enemies.

Why not make common cause on non-social issues?
Why must social causes always come first?

But it takes a specific mindset to accept your premise. And the real question is, do Americans still have the mindset of Americans at the founding of the republic. I think not. Today a majority accept that the Supreme Court tells us “what is right”. Today a majority (liberals + the ignorant + the gullible) feel they should not be required to move to another community to be happy. After all, what liberals believe is “right” and those disagreeing should be compelled to conform as they will be better off!
Liberty is not to be tolerated in the world of liberalism.

Can the ignorant and the gullible be convinced? Only if a sufficiently selfish reason can be found where they will benefit. Capitalism harnesses that selfishness and directs it into the energy needed to financially succeed. When tempered by Judeo-Christian morals, it works. Without the moral base it descends into chaos….as we are seeing!

The 2010 election will give us insight into the state of the American mind. If Obama is relected in 2012 we are doomed.

Is there a limit to tax cuts? Like, say, capital gains taxes.
ernesto on November 15, 2009 at 10:06 AM

No matter how high the tax rates, tax collections never exceed about 22% of GDP. This strongly implies that 20 to 22% is the highest practical tax rate.

We need to show how fiscal conservatism is good socially, how poor people are helped by these policies and how they are hurt by liberal policies. We should explain how allowing social ideas to be decide by local elections and representatives produces a fairer and more acceptable result than the SCOTUS imposing its will on the entire country.

Social Conservative priorities:

Ban abortion, prostitution, homosexuality, public nudity, work on Sunday, sale of alcohol & “recreational” drugs. Oh, and allow Christmas trees in the town square and prayer in public schools (provided it is a Christian prayer as Wiccan or Muslim prayer just wouldn’t do).

Fiscal Conservative priorities:

Lower & fewer taxes, less government regulation, well defended property rights, free trade, and smaller government.

Hmmm. As a self described Federalist I’ve got to go with the Fiscal Conservative, Doc. The social con seems only interested in establishing his religion’s strictures as law, not promoting freedom. Such a man would be just as happy under a theocracy (provided it was Christian) or totalitarian state as long as abortion was illegal and he got the Sabbath off from work.

Browncoatone on November 16, 2009 at 3:58 AM

That’s a pretty broad brush you’re painting with there. Social conservatives want to “ban homosexuality?” or “ban working on Sunday?” Is there a large intersection between the people who think recreation drugs should remain illegal, and those who want to bring back Prohibition? Is public nudity legal at the moment, and opposed only by sour Bible-thumpers? I live in a part of Florida that has a lot of retirees, and I’ve got to tell you, we wouldn’t have a hard time putting together an entirely secular coalition to keep public nudity illegal.

I hate to break it to you, but prayer in schools is not only legal, but compulsory in many places, provided the children pray to Barack Obama. The “prayer in schools” movement has been pretty low-profile for a long time, but as I recall from their heyday, they were pushing for a moment of silent prayer or reflection, and made absolutely no bones about specifying what religions were acceptable. Some schools already do allow open prayer for Muslims. Here is one example of the debate over such a program, but you can Google plenty more.

You’re making exactly the kind of mistake that prompted me to write this article: asserting that every social conservative has extreme religious views, and just can’t wait to impose them on everyone else with a regime of jackbooted religious police. I hope any “fiscal con” reading my essay will at least think about the importance of social conservatives to the movement, and try to see them without preconceptions or exaggerations.

I plan a companion piece for social conservatives, explaining the importance of the fiscal cons to achieving their goals, along with the moral stature of fiscal conservatism. I hope I can address some of your other points when I write it.

Economic slavery, heads….. physical slavery, tails.
Fiscal side…………………………Social side.

Either way you lose. We must fix our monetary system. It’s a matter of survival and as such a practical and moral imperative. Never talked to anyone who’s studied it in any detail who doesn’t come away shaking their heads.

Money is the link between the production and consumption sides of the economy. If that link is corrupt, both fail.

Democrats speak often of those who “win life’s lottery,” insinuating their wealth is not their hard-earned property, to which they have an absolute right.

Funny. To dems, inheriting money is the only moral way to acquire it. Working hard is just greed.

Dems may be selling faulty goods, but at least they deliver. The GOP sells us a plan, then promptly renegs on it. Who to trust then?

ernesto on November 15, 2009 at 10:06 AM

What are they currently delivering?

Ban abortion, prostitution, homosexuality, public nudity, work on Sunday, sale of alcohol & “recreational” drugs. Oh, and allow Christmas trees in the town square and prayer in public schools (provided it is a Christian prayer as Wiccan or Muslim prayer just wouldn’t do).

Fiscal Conservative priorities:

Lower & fewer taxes, less government regulation, well defended property rights, free trade, and smaller government.

Hmmm. As a self described Federalist I’ve got to go with the Fiscal Conservative, Doc. The social con seems only interested in establishing his religion’s strictures as law, not promoting freedom. Such a man would be just as happy under a theocracy (provided it was Christian) or totalitarian state as long as abortion was illegal and he got the Sabbath off from work.

Freedom is the foundation of any successful political movement, but the social conservative agenda doesn’t support freedom most of the time and that is why their arguments fail to sway those not of their faith. That is also the reason the Tea Party Movement has such a wide following: the Tea Party doesn’t divide it’s self over Abortion or “Domestic Unions”. The Tea Party sticks to the Fiscal side of politics and because of that has drawn many social liberals to it’s Gadsden’s Banner. Try to introduce social conservative priorities into the Tea Party and it will fracture to the ruin of us all.

My apologies to real Idiots, Morons and, Teenagers………, at least you can grow up.
:: ))

Smaller, less centralized government allows for the exercise of free will, and so maximizes the opportunities for faith to operate. Such a style of governance is, therefore, more moral.

I’m not even a theist, and I can see this.