From: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Conservatives favor limited government?
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:44:39 GMT
Organization: Gallifrey - Home of the Timelords
Originator: usenet@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu

In article <1992Nov3.161252.10440@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:
>> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>
>>Conservatives believe in limited government
>
>then how come Bush and Reagan, so called 'conservatives', have run up the
>largest government debts IN HISTORY?

Two good reasons:

1) Just because you're president doesn't mean everything goes your way.
When the legislative and executive are of different parties, you gotta
compromise and play ball to get anything done. We haven't had a
Republican Congress since the 50s.

2) The Cold War. Massive defense expenditures. Ding, dong, the war is over.

>
>>and the empowerment of the 
>>individual (the sanctity of individual rights a la Locke)
>
>THIS IS A LAFF! How come conservatives favor the criminalization of
>hemp, even if it is to be used for rope and not drugs?

Because there are suitable substitutes that are not narcotics.

>How come the
>conservatives favor a constitutional amendment BANNING a medical 
>procedure? 

Because there is a valid debate on whether a human life is involved (I
assume you're talking about abortion). While I don't agree with the
conservative platform on this, it is a valid argument.

>How can any governemnt with enough wepaons of mass 
>destruction to nuke the whole world be called 'limited'?

When conservatives speak of limited government, they're talking about
minimal interference in the financial affairs of the people and companies
in their domain. The power to nuke the whole world was a decision made
not by the conservatives, but by the United States. We've had presidents
from both parties fuel this, and a Democrat Congress funding it. The
buildup is not a partisan issue. Now, the massive buildup during the
Reagan years -- mostly on conventional forces, but on nukes too --
is a matter for debate. IMHO, it caused the end of the Cold War. In the
70s, the Soviets did whatever they wanted. With a formidable threat over
here, they toned down in the mid 80s.

Both countries entered an arms race spending money they didn't have.
Fortunately for us, our economic system was better equipped to handle
deficit spending than the communists. Not that that justifies it, but
it's fair to put things in perspective.

>George Bush likes to say he supports small government, but he does not.
>Bush's idea of limited government sure as hell is expensive?

Beats me. Democrats haven't let him try the Bush version of a small
government.

But, finger pointing can be put to rest now. For at least the next two
years -- most likely four -- the Democrats will have no republicans to
blame for the countries problems -- it'll be all theirs, just like the
late 70s.

					- greg
-- 
Greg Trotter				| Joe Isuzu in '96
Norman, Oklahoma			|     -- Stay the Course!
Internet: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu	|
Fidonet: 1:147/63 Treknet: 87:6012/8009	| I don't even represent me.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13476 alt.politics.clinton:16341