Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Social conservative" is an oxymoron. You cannot have government legislating private lives and be a conservative. That's absolutely ridiculous.
Sure one can be a social conservative. Conservative does not mean "without government intervention", that would be Libertarian. Social conservative believe just as you stated. Smaller government is simply for fiscal reasons.
Sure one can be a social conservative. Conservative does not mean "without government intervention", that would be Libertarian. Social conservative believe just as you stated. Smaller government is simply for fiscal reasons.
Yeah. These are the same people who are anti-abortion but pro-death penalty. There is no consistancy for "social conservatives." Everything is "relevant."
Last edited by UB50; 02-19-2007 at 05:10 PM..
Reason: thought one word, typed another!
"Social conservative" is an oxymoron. You cannot have government legislating private lives and be a conservative. That's absolutely ridiculous.
You can't have smaller government and think you can police what people do in private.
again you can argue the terminology but i believe most politically educated people understand what is meant by a social conservative, you can disagree with the position, do you believe you can murder someone in private?
Yeah. These are the same people who are anti-abortion but pro-death penalty. There is no consistancy for "social conservatives." Everything is "relevant."
no everthing is simplistic and black and white for us. we believe in protecting INNOCENT life! thats very consistent.
"Social conservative" is an oxymoron. You cannot have government legislating private lives and be a conservative. That's absolutely ridiculous.
You can't have smaller government and think you can police what people do in private.
yep,and thats one thing I disagree on Bush who has attempted to do.The federal government has no place for nannying the private lives of people....which progressive liberals do alot also.
I've noticed that some here have said conservatives tend to promote fear and mistrust.Can you tell me why then progressive liberals do not trust people to tend to their own money ala social security,do not trust people to have weapons to defend themselves ala the 2nd amendment,and do not trust themselves to use tax money more wisely ala always wanting to increase taxes for more government spending?I must say some so called Republican conservatives can be just as bad at this also.
I like your post mayeagley but I would like to challenge one aspect. You say that you are pro private property rights? Do you think that I or anyone should legally be allowed to smoke marijuana in the privacy of their home?
i believe it should be up to the states but that is where i personally part with my libertarian bretheren, i would not vote to legalize drugs. for more reasons than can be covered here.
I like your post mayeagley but I would like to challenge one aspect. You say that you are pro private property rights? Do you think that I or anyone should legally be allowed to smoke marijuana in the privacy of their home?
Ill put my 2 cents in ...yes.Legalize drugs,this war one drugs is a waste.Apply the same rules as alchohol,though smoking in public would have to be regulated.
Crime rates will decrease,and no I don't think it will increase addicts.Fact is its already illegal and people do it still.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.