[Spexxvet]

Ok, but is that good? The Constitution allowed slavery and held women in such low esteem that they were forbidden to vote. A blanket statement to conserve the values written in the constitution may not be the best philosophy to have.

Of course conservatives don't try to change the Constitution - you don't want it changed. But when laws are made that conservatives don't like, or a presidential election is in question, they use the court system like everyone else does.

There is a clause or two in the constitution that allows for change, and it has been used many times to eliminate slavery, allow women's sufferage etc. In fact, the Bill of Rights is an example of legal change. But it takes the will of the people and time to do that, and Conservatives would like to follow that rule of law.

But you said:

Conservatives conserve the values written in the Constitution.

Which I interpret to mean that you don't want to change tose values, regardless of any clauses that allow for change. When liberals use the rule of law, conservatives object, if the outcome does not fit their agenda.

They want limited regulation. Conservatives are often heard saying "keep government out of my life". Where does lawful society end and anarchy start?

Capital punishment? Anarchy doesn't start with removing capital criminals from society. It starts by letting them go free to commit their crimes again.

My comments about anarchy and capital punishment were independant.

Nobody does.

A balance of law and freedom prevents anarchy. That's why we need government. But government is not the source of all answers or wisdom. It's a necessary evil.

How is government evil? How does your response address my statement that nobody believes in "legalized theft"?

Distribution of wealth. Distribution of wealth. Is that when taxes are collected from everyone who can afford to pay taxes and used to pay for our miltary, police, teachers, etc.? Sure, it also goes to help those who cannot help themselves - the old, infirm, young - but a society is measured by how well they take care of the weakest among them. And yes, some of those who get help aren't the ones who should be getting it, but do you allow some in need to fall through the cracks because of a few bad apples? FWIW, I'm a liberal who believes in workfare. I view taxes as an investment. I don't mind paying taxes if I get a return on my investment, even if it's streets that are swept clean.

Paying taxes to fund government is an obligation of citizenship. Paying taxes to fund research into the sex life of possums is not.

"Fund the government" may very well mean funding "research into the sex life of possums". If understanding the sex life of possums leads to the development of the cure for cancer, would it be worth the funding? Or in your case, if undertanding the sex life of possums leads to the development of a weapon that would kill all non-christian capitalists, would it be worth the funding?

Anything that makes America a better nation is worth funding.

Nor is funding special programs for illegal activities.

What are you talking about?

And taxes are not an investment. Savings bonds are. Taxes are mandatory, investment is not. I'll choose my own investments every time.

Just because they're mandatory doesn't mean I can't demand a return on the taxes I pay.

The financial geniuses in Washington have us in debt far beyond our ability to repay for the forseeable future.

Thank GWB and Reagan for the debt. Do you think you have a better grasp on economic policy than both the Bush AND Obama administrations?

90% of those quotes were in opposition to religion, not Christianity. Semantics again, as in deists, theists.

So you think our forefathers were anti-religion? Ok. That really contradicts your assertion that

Conservatives believe this country was founded on Judeo-Christion principals