Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: charby on April 17, 2014, 07:16:41 PM
-
Why can't party loyal accept a person who can lead, has a fiscal conservative plan but has no opinion (or has a different opinion) on social issues be a GOP candidate on the ballot?
-
Why can't party loyal accept a person who can lead, has a fiscal conservative plan but has no opinion (or has a different opinion) on social issues be a GOP candidate on the ballot?
/sigh
Why can't party loyal accept a person who can lead, has a social conservative plan but has no opinion (or has a different opinion) on social issues be a GOP candidate on the ballot?
See how that works?
-
/sigh
Why can't party loyal accept a person who can lead, has a social conservative plan but has no opinion (or has a different opinion) on social issues be a GOP candidate on the ballot?
See how that works?
Has a social conservative plan but has no opinion on social issues?
-
Why can't party loyal accept a person who can lead, has a fiscal conservative plan but has no opinion (or has a different opinion) on social issues be a GOP candidate on the ballot?
Mostly beause it is a suckers deal. Exchange a sizable number of real socons who vote for near mythological fiscally conservative socially liberal voters riding unicorns.
-
Has a social conservative plan but has no opinion on social issues?
(or has a different opinion
-
Why can't party loyal accept a person who can lead, has a fiscal conservative plan but has no opinion (or has a different opinion) on social issues be a GOP candidate on the ballot?
The premise of your question is shot full of gaping holes. Basically, it is one giant hole.
-
The premise of your question is shot full of gaping holes. Basically, it is one giant hole.
Well what is the big hole?
-
So the candidate has a great plan to balance the budget quicker than 2040 in the Ryan plan but states they are fine with same sex marriage because they feel everyone should have the same rights.
-
Well what is the big hole?
There are several, but I'll list one. Why should socons compromise what they believe in for good fiscal policy, but the social liberals shouldn't compromise what they believe in for the same? Add in that in the real world of people who we actually get to vote for "social liberal fiscal conservative" is rather oxymoronic...
Depending on what type of social issues you're discussing of course. But on say, abortion, you're asking the people who believe it to be the violent slaughter of the innocent to let it happen in exchange for better tax policy but saying that the reverse is unacceptable.
There are plenty of other problems, but that's the most glaring.
-
So the candidate has a great plan to balance the budget quicker than 2040 in the Ryan plan but states they are fine with same sex marriage because they feel everyone should have the same rights.
PLans to balance the budget are a lot like plans to secure the border after the next amnesty. I hear about them but they never seem to actually happen.
Plans to force destructive social engineering down the throats of people who don't want it always seem to go into effect right away. Strange how that works.
-
Until we have actual, real controls against rampant spending (such as an amendment that requires balanced spending or something similar), we'll never see real fiscal reform.
Remember the sequester "deals"?
I called it then. "Watch, they'll commit to cuts, won't actually make them, and we'll be right back here later"
Which is exactly what happened.
-
Well what is the big hole?
To summarize, you think that Democrat Lite somehow works, when it comes to the social issues, even though it doesn't work well elsewhere.
-
It's been my experience that most people on the right are more interested in criticizing and blaming each other than in working together for common goals. Not sure why that is, but I see it over and over again. Very frustrating.
-
Charby: would you vote for and support a candidate with a reasonable plan to balance the budget, who believed in and protected the 2A, and was Eco friendly and supported good conservation plans; but who also wanted to make all abortions and being openly homosexual illegal? Why or why not?
It's been my experience that most people on the right are more interested in criticizing and blaming each other than in working together for common goals. Not sure why that is, but I see it over and over again. Very frustrating.
In my experience when someone is complaining about an inability to put aside differences and work together what they really mean is "Why are you damn bitter clingers not voting for this northeast liberal progressive who has an R by his name? HE HAS AN R BY HIS NAME FOR GOD'S SAKE WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?!?!?!?!"
-
I've seen a few people trying for Repub endorsement vilified because they weren't in lock-step on all issues. Whereas the Dems seem to get behind one person, and go to the mat for them
-
Charby: would you vote for and support a candidate with a reasonable plan to balance the budget, who believed in and protected the 2A, and was Eco friendly and supported good conservation plans; but who also wanted to make all abortions and being openly homosexual illegal? Why or why not?
It would depend upon whom they are running against, on the primary ballot or the general ballot. If the other person was a Barbara Boxer, Charles Schumer or Charlie Rangel clone, I'd vote for the person you mentioned above. If Bill Richardson was the D on ballot, I'd probably vote D.
Why? If someone made it a issue in their campaign that being openly homosexual was illegal, I'd start to wonder what other types of people or behaviors they want to make illegal (like they want to make Roman Catholic, Muslim and Jewish religions illegal also). As for abortion, I really think that decision has been made and short of some sort mass extinction of all Americans except for the far right, abortion is going to be legal for my lifetime. Making abortion illegal would just as difficult as repealing the Civil Rights Act.
-
It's been my experience that most people on the right are more interested in criticizing and blaming each other than in working together for common goals. Not sure why that is, but I see it over and over again. Very frustrating.
Pretty much why I didn't seek another term on the local county GOP central committee. I've been a central committee person for 10 years and the treasurer for 5 years of it. Even when a person stepped up to get on the ballot as an R because no one else was running as an R, if they were not 100% in lock step with every item on the platform they got criticized for not being good enough instead of being supported because they had the courage to run for office.
-
The desire for political power to achieve social engineering goals is not limited to the Left. Nor is the desire to impose one's religious, social or moral beliefs upon others who do not share them.
-
Even when a person stepped up to get on the ballot as an R because no one else was running as an R, if they were not 100% in lock step with every item on the platform they got criticized for not being good enough instead of being supported because they had the courage to run for office.
I wasn't there, and I haven't seen what you've seen. However, having seen what I've seen, I suspect what really happened was that the candidates in question were not committed to the same principles as those they wished to represent, so other party members were not as supportive as they might have been. Which is as is it should be.
-
Why can't party loyal accept a person who can lead, has a fiscal conservative plan but has no opinion (or has a different opinion) on social issues be a GOP candidate on the ballot?
Why can't people who want fiscal conservatism accept a person who can lead, has a fiscal conservative plan, but is equally sensible (i.e., conservative) on social matters? Let's not fool ourselves about who is distracting folk from fiscal issues.
Why can't those same people try to find a way to respectfully, tactfully seek middle ground with the so-cons, instead of lecturing us from their high horses about how we are all screwed up, and everything's our fault?
I'm sorry if I've brought that up too often here, but I call them the antisocial conservatives for a reason. They are biting the only hand that is likely to help them (i.e., the so-cons).
And to be fair, I think a lot of people on my side are just too suspicious of the other side, and should be more willing to learn. Case in point: I know a lot of people of my persuasion will never be brought around to drug legalizing, because it's just too hippy, and they can't see how it affects them. That's especially true when drug legalizationist sentiment is so often accompanied by fedora atheism, and slur terms like "homophobe."
-
I wasn't there, and I haven't seen what you've seen. However, having seen what I've seen, I suspect what really happened was that the candidates in question were not committed to the same principles as those they wished to represent, so other party members were not as supportive as they might have been. Which is as is it should be.
When is the last time a strong fundamentalist Republican candidate made on a ballot and also won the election on a state exec race (Gov, Sec of State, Treasurer or Attorney General), US Senate, US Congress or President?
Seems like in Iowa, open fundamentalist candidates can make it to a few a state house or state senate seat (and lower offices) and win because of the constituency of the district (strong Dutch Reform areas) but they lose on higher races at the primary.
-
Why can't people who want fiscal conservatism accept a person who can lead, has a fiscal conservative plan, but is equally sensible (i.e., conservative) on social matters? Let's not fool ourselves about who is distracting folk from fiscal issues.
Why can't those same people try to find a way to respectfully, tactfully seek middle ground with the so-cons, instead of lecturing us from their high horses about how we are all screwed up, and everything's our fault?
I'm sorry if I've brought that up too often here, but I call them the antisocial conservatives for a reason. They are biting the only hand that is likely to help them (i.e., the so-cons).
And to be fair, I think a lot of people on my side are just too suspicious of the other side, and should be more willing to learn. Case in point: I know a lot of people of my persuasion will never be brought around to drug legalizing, because it's just too hippy, and they can't see how it affects them. That's especially true when drug legalizationist sentiment is so often accompanied by fedora atheism, and slur terms like "homophobe."
If a so-con running said, "I do believe that marriage should be one man and one woman, and I personally feel that abortion should be illegal, but we know that times have changed and making gay marriage and abortion illegal is battle that probably will not be won." I could support that person 100% if I was in agreement with their other campaign issues.
-
Perfect is the mortal enemy of pretty damn good.
-
Perfect is the mortal enemy of pretty damn good.
"If you're not first, you're last!" -Ricky Bobby
Had to be non sequitur for a bit. :rofl:
-
If a so-con running said, "I do believe that marriage should be one man and one woman, and I personally feel that abortion should be illegal, but we know that times have changed and making gay marriage and abortion illegal is battle that probably will not be won." I could support that person 100% if I was in agreement with their other campaign issues.
So, you don't mind that they hold those views, but you do mind if they act on them.
-
So, you don't mind that they hold those views, but you do mind if they act on them.
If they are fighting a losing political battle, yes.
Be no different than if member of one of the Christian churches that believes that women are subservient to the men and if he got elected he tries to repeal the 19th Amendment.
-
When is the last time a strong fundamentalist Republican candidate made on a ballot and also won the election on a state exec race (Gov, Sec of State, Treasurer or Attorney General), US Senate, US Congress or President?
Seems like in Iowa, open fundamentalist candidates can make it to a few a state house or state senate seat (and lower offices) and win because of the constituency of the district (strong Dutch Reform areas) but they lose on higher races at the primary.
I was going to say that you moved the goal post, but you've actually swapped goal posts and are now playing for the opposing team.
You originally asked why all the GOP pols are socially conservative. But now you're saying that they can't even get elected to the top offices. These dueling questions could only be reconciled if a super-majority of governors, Congressfolk, etc; were Democrats. This is not the case.
I also note that you use the term "fundamentalist," a term with which few so-cons identify, and most see as a pejorative. See my comments above, about productive dialog with the so-cons.
-
If a so-con running said, "I do believe that marriage should be one man and one woman, and I personally feel that abortion should be illegal, but we know that times have changed and making gay marriage and abortion illegal is battle that probably will not be won." I could support that person 100% if I was in agreement with their other campaign issues.
An objective observer would have to regard that as really, really terrible messaging. Your candidate would be giving red meat to the Democratic Party ("He admitted that he's a gay-hating enemy of choice that wants to put women in jail for their reproductive health choices!"), while telling a vast swath of potential voters that they've lost, so they shouldn't expect him to try to make a difference on two things they care about. Besides which, people don't like hearing a defeatist attitude like that from Presidents. They don't want him to be the guy that says, "Quit fighting; they won."
Though I will grant that Obama has gotten away with a defeatist attitude on a couple of things.
-
If they are fighting a losing political battle, yes.
Be no different than if member of one of the Christian churches that believes that women are subservient to the men and if he got elected he tries to repeal the 19th Amendment.
Well except that there are majorities in favor of traditional marriage and for restricting abortion. And in the means of imposition where abortion and gay pseudomarriage have been imposed by a progressive judiciary in contrast to the amendment process that requires supermajorities of elected congresscritters and elected state legislators.
But other than that no difference.
-
I've seen a few people trying for Repub endorsement vilified because they weren't in lock-step on all issues. Whereas the Dems seem to get behind one person, and go to the mat for them
The left has a pretty big advantage here. The environmentalists will work with the union thugs, and the black power will work with the radfems. The left all works together towards their common goals even when they have almost nothing in common at all. But hell will freeze over before a libertarian cooperates with an evangelical, or a wealthy businessman type with a flyover hick.
Wish I knew a solution for that.
Incidentally, Rand Paul, of all people, he seems to really get this. He shows a surprising willingness to support other folks on our side, even when he may not completely agree with them. A real team player, and the exact opposite of his father.
-
It's easy to work together when there are no real principles.
-
The left has their principles. Warped and twisted and wrong, perhaps, but principles nonetheless.
-
If they are fighting a losing political battle, yes.
Be no different than if member of one of the Christian churches that believes that women are subservient to the men and if he got elected he tries to repeal the 19th Amendment.
Restrictions on abortion after 20 weeks have what, %70-80 approval ratings? Gay marriage, so popular the courts had to force Ca to adopt it after they passed an initiative against it. You're parroting the left's "inevitability" nonsense.
And your laughably transparent disdain for peoe who dare to take their religion seriously is both eye roll worthy and a perfect window into how you view us. "Why won't you damn wife beating hateful morons just shut up, stop acting about the things I don't care about, and vote how I want?!?!?!" Why indeed.
-
Restrictions on abortion after 20 weeks have what, %70-80 approval ratings? Gay marriage, so popular the courts had to force Ca to adopt it after they passed an initiative against it. You're parroting the left's "inevitability" nonsense.
And your laughably transparent disdain for peoe who dare to take their religion seriously is both eye roll worthy and a perfect window into how you view us. "Why won't you damn wife beating hateful morons just shut up, stop acting about the things I don't care about, and vote how I want?!?!?!" Why indeed.
If its so such a high approval rating why isn't it illegal?
-
And your laughably transparent disdain for peoe who dare to take their religion seriously is both eye roll worthy and a perfect window into how you view us. "Why won't you damn wife beating hateful morons just shut up, stop acting about the things I don't care about, and vote how I want?!?!?!" Why indeed.
Compromise, neither side is 100% happy but each gets something.
-
If its so such a high approval rating why isn't it illegal?
Because every GOP politician at the state and national level is strictly pro-life. Or not. ???
-
Because every GOP politician at the state and national level is strictly pro-life. Or not. ???
60% to 70% populace approval should translate that 60-70% of all politicians feel that way and should be slam dunk legislation to outlaw abortion after 20 weeks on a federal level.
-
Or, no, it's because pro-life pols never make it past dog-catcher.
Wait, which is it? ???
-
I was going to say that you moved the goal post, but you've actually swapped goal posts and are now playing for the opposing team.
You originally asked why all the GOP pols are socially conservative. But now you're saying that they can't even get elected to the top offices. These dueling questions could only be reconciled if a super-majority of governors, Congressfolk, etc; were Democrats. This is not the case.
I also note that you use the term "fundamentalist," a term with which few so-cons identify, and most see as a pejorative. See my comments above, about productive dialog with the so-cons.
I'm not sure of your level on involvement in politics, but when a person wants to run for office they usually start with their local party organization to make the first step/be criticized to death. Gotta get those nomination signatures somewhere.
-
OK, this:
Why can't party loyal accept a person who can lead, has a fiscal conservative plan but has no opinion (or has a different opinion) on social issues be a GOP candidate on the ballot?
seems to contradict this:
When is the last time a strong fundamentalist Republican candidate made on a ballot and also won the election on a state exec race (Gov, Sec of State, Treasurer or Attorney General), US Senate, US Congress or President?
Seems like in Iowa, open fundamentalist candidates can make it to a few a state house or state senate seat (and lower offices) and win because of the constituency of the district (strong Dutch Reform areas) but they lose on higher races at the primary.
(assuming "party loyal" refers to Republican voters)
Which is it? You say that Republicans won't even put someone on the ballot, unless they are so-cons. Then you talk as though so-cons never win. And there are hundreds of GOP Congresscritters, governors, et al; and even a recent president.
So how are these GOP winning, w/o being put on the ballot?
-
Social conservatism, liberal gaia theory hippie tears, and sharia are all the same in my mind. Piss poor ways to run a government and they all come with a demand that you believe as they tell you or else.
Balance the budget, fix the roads, annihilate foreign enemies. Let us sort the rest out by ourselves at church, the bar or wherever else you might find handy.
-
OK, this:
seems to contradict this:
(assuming "party loyal" refers to Republican voters)
Which is it? You say that Republicans won't even put someone on the ballot, unless they are so-cons. Then you talk as though so-cons never win. And there are hundreds of GOP Congresscritters, governors, et al; and even a recent president.
So how are these GOP winning, w/o being put on the ballot?
I probably used the term party loyal too loosely. The average GOP voter just shows up at the ballot box at primary and election time to cast there ballot, most not even being part of the vetting process.
-
Social conservatism, liberal gaia theory hippie tears, and sharia are all the same in my mind. Piss poor ways to run a government and they all come with a demand that you believe as they tell you or else.
Balance the budget, fix the roads, annihilate foreign enemies. Let us sort the rest out by ourselves at church, the bar or wherever else you might find handy.
+1
-
Social conservatism, liberal gaia theory hippie tears, and sharia are all the same in my mind. Piss poor ways to run a government and they all come with a demand that you believe as they tell you or else.
Balance the budget, fix the roads, annihilate foreign enemies. Let us sort the rest out by ourselves at church, the bar or wherever else you might find handy.
x2 Secular government, not moral police.
-
Social conservatism, liberal gaia theory hippie tears, and sharia are all the same in my mind. Piss poor ways to run a government and they all come with a demand that you believe as they tell you or else.
Balance the budget, fix the roads, annihilate foreign enemies. Let us sort the rest out by ourselves at church, the bar or wherever else you might find handy.
I think you've just endorsed social conservatism. Left to shift for ourselves, and with a minimal government, there will be a sort of cultural inertia. It's no coincidence that social liberalism has been the project of those who endorse an ever-expanding regulatory state and vast social spending programs.
-
Social conservatism, liberal gaia theory hippie tears, and sharia are all the same in my mind. Piss poor ways to run a government and they all come with a demand that you believe as they tell you or else.
Balance the budget, fix the roads, annihilate foreign enemies. Let us sort the rest out by ourselves at church, the bar or wherever else you might find handy.
QFTMFT!!!!!
And Fistful; that may be the ideal you strive for, but in practice socon's trend to try and use the government to enforce their morality on others.
-
I think you've just endorsed social conservatism. Left to shift for ourselves, and with a minimal government, there will be a sort of cultural inertia.
Or is this a more libertarian stance than it is social conservatism?
-
Social conservatives will tell you there will never be a morality-free government despite what libertarians hope and believe. The only question to be resolved is which moral code will be imposed.
-
And Fistful; that may be the ideal you strive for, but in practice socon's humans try and use the government to enforce their morality on others. are not nearly so libertarian as they ought to be.
-
Social conservatism, liberal gaia theory hippie tears, and sharia are all the same in my mind. Piss poor ways to run a government and they all come with a demand that you believe as they tell you or else.
Balance the budget, fix the roads, annihilate foreign enemies. Let us sort the rest out by ourselves at church, the bar or wherever else you might find handy.
Ah, yes. And now we get the REAL reason that social conservatives and the mythical "fiscal conservative but socially liberal" can't work together.
"YOU SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES JUST WANT TO PUSH YOUR SHARIA LAWS ON ME!"
Social conservatives = the Taliban.
Gee, why can't we just get with the program and act like those who have the above opinion of us want us to act.
I read a study recently that liberals have very limited empathy: Most have difficulty placing themselves in someone else's position and following their reasoning. It seems libertarians share yet another trait with liberals.
-
in practice socon's trend to try and use the government to enforce their morality on others.
Use of government to enforce their own morality is the underlying goal of every political movement. Libertarians and Leftists included.
Social conservatives will tell you there will never be a morality-free government despite what libertarians hope and believe. The only question to be resolved is which moral code will be imposed.
Well, yeah, and honest libertarians will too.
-
http://publicreligion.org/research/2014/02/2014-lgbt-survey/
Currently, a majority (53%) of Americans favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry, compared to 41% who oppose.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/support-for-same-sex-marriage-hits-new-high-half-say-constitution-guarantees-right/2014/03/04/f737e87e-a3e5-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html
Beyond the constitutional questions, a record-high 59 percent say they support same-sex marriage, while 34 percent are opposed, the widest margin tracked in Post-ABC polling.
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
Do you support or oppose allowing same-sex couples to get married?"
.
Support Oppose Unsure
% % %
3/7-10/14 55 36 9
-
Social conservatism, liberal gaia theory hippie tears, and sharia are all the same in my mind. Piss poor ways to run a government and they all come with a demand that you believe as they tell you or else.
Balance the budget, fix the roads, annihilate foreign enemies. Let us sort the rest out by ourselves at church, the bar or wherever else you might find handy.
I've been compromising my whole life voting for every Republican I could and have never gotten the balanced budget, good roads or a foreign policy I could stand behind. And to top it all off I've seen the government supported degradation of our culture as well as liberty march on even during Republican regimes.
*expletive deleted* them
-
I think you've just endorsed social conservatism. Left to shift for ourselves, and with a minimal government, there will be a sort of cultural inertia.
Or is this a more libertarian stance than it is social conservatism?
Why should the two conflict, unless libertarians actually want to change my views on, for example, whether drug abuse or prostitution are moral and wholesome activities?
-
I've never understood this part.
The Bible has no mention of any recreational drugs.
So why is controlled use of these drugs (as opposed to becoming an addict) unwholesome and unchristian, while alcohol is not?
-
I've never understood this part.
The Bible has no mention of any recreational drugs.
So why is controlled use of these drugs (as opposed to becoming an addict) unwholesome and unchristian, while alcohol is not?
I think the answer is extrapolation. Drunkenness is advised against Biblically, and most recreational drugs exist to get the user "drunk" in some fashion.
For the record, I oppose legislation that criminalizes an adult buying/selling/using/abusing drugs.
-
Or is this a more libertarian stance than it is social conservatism?
Why should the two conflict, unless libertarians actually want to change my views on, for example, whether drug abuse or prostitution are moral and wholesome activities?
Libertarians don't want to change your ethics on those matters they just don't want to spend the resources of the state (tax dollars) prosecuting them as illegal.
A nanny state with Christian sensibilities is every bit the nanny state that a progressive nanny state is; just different ox's getting gored.
-
I've never understood this part.
The Bible has no mention of any recreational drugs.
So why is controlled use of these drugs (as opposed to becoming an addict) unwholesome and unchristian, while alcohol is not?
Use of alcohol in and of itself is not condemned in the Bible and moderate use is endorsed several places. OTOH, drunkenness is condemned in no uncertain terms.
Other recreational drugs generally get a bad rap due to the users and the dysfunctional culture from which the users come, especially since the drugs are viewed as part of the reason for the degenerate culture. When looking at a crack house, opium den from the early 20th century, or mid-century hop heads sitting around on the porch accomplishing zero amidst squalor, the first thing that springs to mind is not upper class white folk indulging in the moderate use of the associated intoxicant as part of their ordered and comfortable lives.
Also, neither Jesus nor the prophets are recorded as tripping on shrooms, though many decadent and evil pagan cultures are shown indulging in blood, sex, and intoxicant-soaked orgies. Those are the sort of cultures God commanded the Jews to slaughter to a man. Not a great stretch to then feel revulsion toward those exhibiting some of those characteristics.
-
QFTMFT!!!!!
And Fistful; that may be the ideal you strive for, but in practice socon's trend to try and use the government to enforce their morality on others.
^^^^ this! In spades. Ever since the puritan's down this way wanted to burn Baltimore for allowing dancing and likely before
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
-
I've never understood this part.
The Bible has no mention of any recreational drugs.
So why is controlled use of these drugs (as opposed to becoming an addict) unwholesome and unchristian, while alcohol is not?
Booze is a recreational drug
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
-
A nanny state with Christian sensibilities is every bit the nanny state that a progressive nanny state is; just different ox's getting gored.
That is beautiful.
-
Booze is a recreational drug
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
In ancient times wine/beer was safer to drink that water.
-
Use of government to enforce their own morality is the underlying goal of every political movement. Libertarians and Leftists included.
It behooves us to support the political movements that support individual liberty. Even if that liberty is the freedom to engage in something we find abhorrent.
Supporting the morality of free will untangles a person from having to justify the use of government force to impose their will on other people regarding subjects not related to the protection of individual life, liberty or property.
-
And Fistful; that may be the ideal you strive for, but in practice socon's trend to try and use the government to enforce their morality on others.
Isn't that what they all do, with the possible exception of the Libertarians? Left even seem more strident about it. ("Homophobe", "patriarchy", etc)
-
It behooves us to support the political movements that support individual liberty. Even if that liberty is the freedom to engage in something we find abhorrent.
Supporting the morality of free will untangles a person from having to justify the use of government force to impose their will on other people regarding subjects not related to the protection of individual life, liberty or property.
I don't disagree with any of that, but probably because it fits with my view of morality.
-
It behooves us to support the political movements that support individual liberty. Even if that liberty is the freedom to engage in something we find abhorrent.
That really is the key, but it is a big hill to climb. It was fairly easy for me to make the transition from Republican to 'Republitarian". It has been much more difficult for me to make the transition to libertarian. I'm near it, but certainly, "accepting the (to me) abhorrent" has been the most difficult part of my process.
-
That really is the key, but it is a big hill to climb. It was fairly easy for me to make the transition from Republican to 'Republitarian". It has been much more difficult for me to make the transition to libertarian. I'm near it, but certainly, "accepting the (to me) abhorrent" has been the most difficult part of my process.
Same here, I could never be 100% Libertarian for many reasons.
-
Social conservatism, liberal gaia theory hippie tears, and sharia are all the same in my mind. Piss poor ways to run a government and they all come with a demand that you believe as they tell you or else.
Balance the budget, fix the roads, annihilate foreign enemies. Let us sort the rest out by ourselves at church, the bar or wherever else you might find handy.
It's astonishing that social conservatives won't work with you all, when you obviously have such a conciliatory approach. ;/
"I hate you people, and piss on everything you hold dear. Now why won't you vote for me?" So confusing.
-
http://publicreligion.org/research/2014/02/2014-lgbt-survey/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/support-for-same-sex-marriage-hits-new-high-half-say-constitution-guarantees-right/2014/03/04/f737e87e-a3e5-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
Polls showed the same thing in CA, before Prop 8 was passed. Despite all the hysterical "Christians who vote are the Taliban!!!!" stuff we hear from liberals (and libertarians on here) people are far more afraid of the nanny-state and the vitriolicly intolerant leftist society (ie that Mozilla guy getting fired for giving a little money to Prop 8) punishing them for thought crime.
-
I've never understood this part.
The Bible has no mention of any recreational drugs.
So why is controlled use of these drugs (as opposed to becoming an addict) unwholesome and unchristian, while alcohol is not?
Cultural thing. And one that the larger so-con movement as a whole is finally beginning to get past thankfully.
-
Ok, one last then I'm done with this trainwreck.
All law is enforced morality. ALL of it. Pratting on about the zomg Christian Taliban who want to impose Sharia while posing as the noble hero far above it all who just wants truth justice and the American way is nice for stroking your ego, but really just reveals that you don't have much understanding of the words you're using.
Unless you are full on anarcho-capitalist/voluntarist/utopian, then you support enforcing your morality at gun point. So drop the hypocritical BS, own up to what the debate really is (who's morals shall we enforce?), and argue your point.
-
The left has a pretty big advantage here. The environmentalists will work with the union thugs, and the black power will work with the radfems. The left all works together towards their common goals even when they have almost nothing in common at all. But hell will freeze over before a libertarian cooperates with an evangelical, or a wealthy businessman type with a flyover hick.
Wish I knew a solution for that.
Incidentally, Rand Paul, of all people, he seems to really get this. He shows a surprising willingness to support other folks on our side, even when he may not completely agree with them. A real team player, and the exact opposite of his father.
Feel free to try cooperating, for a change, then. ;/
Yes, I get that you meant the other way round. If it doesn't work both ways, then you're just going on again about why we silly idealists won't support people bitterly opposed to what we actually want, and how that means the Death of American Society. Pass. Try not insulting us when you know you need our votes (or even just WANT them), for a change.
I think you've just endorsed social conservatism. Left to shift for ourselves, and with a minimal government, there will be a sort of cultural inertia. It's no coincidence that social liberalism has been the project of those who endorse an ever-expanding regulatory state and vast social spending programs.
Seriously? Someone telling me what I can and can't do in the bedroom - with my FREAKING WIFE, even, let alone the hypothetical "any number of willing consenting partners"! - *IS NOT* working in favor of personal liberty, no matter what he or she claims.
I point you in the general direction of the Grand Old Idiot Party's Ken Cuccinelli, a "social conservative" if you ever saw one, grandly trying to fight a battle lost, for good reason, in the Supreme Court a freaking DECADE ago. Of course, the LA legislature appears hellbent on the exact same statist "moral" posturing, today. :facepalm: I'm supposed to cooperate with fools who want to criminalize what kind of sex I have with my wife in a shotgun attempt to "stop teh pedo-GAYZORS!!!", in order to "advance the cause of liberty"??? Coupled with spending programs which MIGHT, MAYBE, be a touch less expansive than those of the other wing of the Modern American Political Machine?
Liberty - "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Seeking that kind of cooperation smacks of the same condescension and imagined moral superiority as we see from victim-disarmament advocates imploring us pro-rights types to just "compromise" with them for a change. Yeah, the quest for the perfect absolutely can be the enemy of achieving something good. But the BAD? That's not even on the same side of the scale, and that's what we're talking about accepting in that attempted achievement. SCREW. THAT.
-
Feel free to try cooperating, for a change, then. ;/
Yes, I get that you meant the other way round. If it doesn't work both ways, then you're just going on again about why we silly idealists won't support people bitterly opposed to what we actually want, and how that means the Death of American Society. Pass. Try not insulting us when you know you need our votes (or even just WANT them), for a change.
Seriously? Someone telling me what I can and can't do in the bedroom - with my FREAKING WIFE, even, let alone the hypothetical "any number of willing consenting partners"! - *IS NOT* working in favor of personal liberty, no matter what he or she claims.
I point you in the general direction of the Grand Old Idiot Party's Ken Cuccinelli, a "social conservative" if you ever saw one, grandly trying to fight a battle lost, for good reason, in the Supreme Court a freaking DECADE ago. Of course, the LA legislature appears hellbent on the exact same statist "moral" posturing, today. :facepalm: I'm supposed to cooperate with fools who want to criminalize what kind of sex I have with my wife in a shotgun attempt to "stop teh pedo-GAYZORS!!!", in order to "advance the cause of liberty"??? Coupled with spending programs which MIGHT, MAYBE, be a touch less expansive than those of the other wing of the Modern American Political Machine?
Liberty - "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Seeking that kind of cooperation smacks of the same condescension and imagined moral superiority as we see from victim-disarmament advocates imploring us pro-rights types to just "compromise" with them for a change. Yeah, the quest for the perfect absolutely can be the enemy of achieving something good. But the BAD? That's not even on the same side of the scale, and that's what we're talking about accepting in that attempted achievement. SCREW. THAT.
Actually, we social conservatives aren't claiming that we only care about social issues and don't care about anything else. We make a point that these issues are part and parcel, along with the fiscal issues to the continued existence and prosperity of our country.
It's the ZOMG FISCAL ISSUES ARE ALL THAT IS IMPORTANT!!111!! crowd that is being disingenuous when they tell Christians and other social conservatives to shut up about those issues so we can just win.
What they really mean is that they want all their social issues addressed and consider them more important than fiscal issues. Otherwise, they'd be more than willing to accept someone who is both fiscally and socially conservative. That such a person is unacceptable pretty well illustrates what importance they place on fiscal issues. (For example, see your absolute froth and venom about Mr. Cuccinelli.)
Secondly, perhaps you could tell me what that "idiot" Ken Cuccinelli was litigating. Please be specific in the case and circumstances.
-
It's like I never left APS at all.
Tell me, both sides of this argument: does this ever bore you?
-
As we can see, the Left is not the only side playing the victim card.
-
Its all a big circle jerk.
I hear all the time about principled conservatives standing by their beliefs on, for example, gay marriage or drugs
And I can respect that
Then I hear from those same people later about what an ahole I am for not compromising MY beliefs.