wkelly. I get that you had a problem with the lying under oath. But if you didn't have a problem with him getting a little action, why did you guys spend 60 million dollars on the Starr investigation to get to the lying under oath part?
It was about more than lying under oath. It was about spite, if you ask me.
Absolutely Adequate wrote:While that's true that he could, he is awfully... leftish for a republican. Supports abortion, gay rights, and gun control. Calling him part of the right is like calling Zell part of the left.
I think this is the root of a lot of our political problems. Social and economic policies are tied together to generalize a group, when in fact, they can clearly be seperate issues.
One can easily hate big government AND support legal abortion, gay rights, legalization of drugs, etc... These people are more in line with Libertarian ideology than Republican, but both are thrown into a "right wing" generalization.
Well, a liberterian basically believes in little to no governmental control, right?
A social liberterian believes that we need little to no governmental control in personal matters: i.e. legalization of drugs, gay marriage, assisted suicide, etc. To sum up my beliefs: If it doesn't hurt you, keep your nose out of it. Financially, I'm not so sure that I believe in their ethos, but I haven't read enough of their financial ideology to say for sure. Which is why I'd rather call myself a social liberterian.
Absolutely Adequate wrote:A social liberterian believes that we need little to no governmental control in personal matters: i.e. legalization of drugs, gay marriage, assisted suicide, etc. To sum up my beliefs: If it doesn't hurt you, keep your nose out of it.
So would you agree to have the federal goverment get out of social management entirely? Meaning Income re-distribution? Will you allow drug addicts who have fried their brains to die? Or will you still want government intervention there? If you are a true social liberitarian you would want goverment out of persons lives both good and bad.
There was a time in this country when there were no social programs. Who supported the less fortunate then? Churchs, families, small towns etc. Today it is the almighty Federal Goverment with their gun in one hand, and the other reaching for the wallets those who have earned their money and been responsible with their lives with the other.
Now thanks in part to the Federal Government...families are fragmenting. Churches are building gyms instead of changing lives. Small towns don't know each other