Why not big tent GOP?

[cordex]

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.

[MicroBalrog]

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

[Ron]

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

[Perd Hapley]

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?

[MicroBalrog]

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?

[cordex]

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.

[Ron]

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.

[roo_ster]

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.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

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

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

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

[charby]

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.

[charby]

Booze is a recreational drug

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

In ancient times wine/beer was safer to drink that water.

[Ron]

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.

[zxcvbob]

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)

[cordex]

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.

[Ben]

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.

[charby]

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.

[Balog]

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.

[Balog]

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.

[Balog]

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.

[Balog]

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.

[erictank]

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.   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.

[makattak]

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.  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.

[MicroBalrog]

It's like I never left APS at all.

Tell me, both sides of this argument: does this ever bore you?

[MillCreek]

As we can see, the Left is not the only side playing the victim card.