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.
America has no future in the long run (unless some drastic change happens in the next couple of decades), it will just continue decaying until Russia, India, China and Brazil all surpass it in more or less every sense, and then the USA will either collapse or be something like the United Kingdom is today, a former superpower way past it's prime, but in a much worse shape socially.
It is your definition that is skewed. For the last 80 years we have had a socially and fiscally liberal federal government. Spending taxpayer money they do not have in order to socially re-engineer society, even if it means violating the Supreme Law of the Land. Socially liberal means bigger government, more government intrusion into our lives, and less liberty for everyone.
Social conservatives, on the other hand, are only interested in maintaining or preserving the status quo. They are not trying to re-engineer society or limit people's freedoms, and they abide by the Supreme Law of the Land. From 1789 until 1913 the US had a socially conservative federal government. It has only been in the last 80 years that we have slid down the path of destruction towards social liberalism.
So you are in favor of disenfranchising women and blacks, rolling back civil rights, reinstate slavery and essentially go back to the stone ages.
I have a suggestion for you - move to Afghanistan and join the Taliban. You will find a lot in common with them.
I take fiscal conservative to be responsible government spending, federal and/or state.
I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tofurkey
I take socially liberal to be less government regulation in personal preferences and activities. That being more a state function. If I want an energy drink stoked with caffeine then I mean I don't want Michelle Obama telling me I have to drink sugar free orange juice.
But they are telling you what you can eat and drink already. Particularly in places like New York City. Which is not exactly a bastion of conservatism. Would you define Michelle Obama as a conservative? Of course not. So why would you define socially liberal as being the opposite of what she is pushing?
It is not just a Republican vs. Democrat issue either. There are Republicans who are just as socially liberal as any Democrat. As evidenced by the GOP sponsored "Communications Decency Act of 1996" and the MedicAid Prescription Plan B program while Bush was President.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tofurkey
Or, in fifteen words or less... Get any government's hands out of my pockets and its nose out of my ass. (Unless, of course, it's a really attractive government agent, then we can take a moment to talk about it)
I could not agree more. In order to do that the federal government must become more socially conservative and start abiding by the limitations imposed upon them by the US Constitution. It is not the federal government's place to "fix" society.
Why do so many mention finances, as if that is the only thing that matters?
The future of any nation is only as bright (or as dim) as the general mentality of the population. Look forward to America's Dark Ages!
And for a large segment of America, Jesus will soon return.
Americans are ignorant, gullible, obedient chumps.
You know, in the long run, short term changes in political ideology don't really matter. Not least of which because we essentially have two parties that are of the same ideology, except with regard to who they think should benefit the most, but because we have a system that is set up to not be responsive and dynamic. That may have worked in the 18th century when developments in the world occurred at a snail's pace, but in the fast paced 21st century it just means America will get left further behind as other countries adapt to the new reality and make the necessary changes to take advantage of it.
Unfortunately, more liberal socially, but maybe more fiscally conservative.
Ideally, it would be nice if the United States became more conservative both socially and fiscally.
I agree, that would be ideal. The federal government was fiscally and socially conservative during the first 124 years, but it has been neither in the last 80 years.
Also, a government cannot become more socially liberal and remain fiscally conservative. They are mutually exclusive. If government is more socially liberal, then by necessity they must also be more liberal fiscally in order to pay for all of their liberal social programs.
Why more conservative socially? What about freedom?
A country can still be conservative socially and have a lot of freedom. The liberation of the country since the 1960s hasn't really improved things, we now have legalized abortion, nearly 50% divorce rate, over 40% of all babies are born out of wedlock, moral values have worsened and proper manners don't hold the importance they did not so long ago, etc. The only thing that has improved during that time is that women now have more rights and racism is no longer common.
A country can still be conservative socially and have a lot of freedom. The liberation of the country since the 1960s hasn't really improved things, we now have legalized abortion, nearly 50% divorce rate, over 40% of all babies are born out of wedlock, moral values have worsened and proper manners don't hold the importance they did not so long ago, etc. The only thing that has improved during that time is that women now have more rights and racism is no longer common.
Hmmmm. In a very recent study, the U.S. ranked 17th in the developed world as to how women are treated. I.e. not even in the top ten... ... Overt racism is no longer legal it is still very much common. In fact, if racism in particular were addressed there would be a LOT fewer African American women in poverty and that would have amazingly positive results on the abortion, teen pregnancy and unwed mother statistics. A more conservative society would not, IMO, improve things but would give a measure of comfort to those who want to abdicate from personal responsibility. Nanny States are comforts to fools with control issues. Can we get the Tea Party Anarchists and the Nanny State "Back to the Bible" Puritans in a locked room winner take all? The outcome, as I have said, won't matter to me. I don't intend to stay here a year longer than I absolutely have to.
H
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.
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.
