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.
I am using the language we all use today, not some centuries old definition that no longer applies. Language changes over time, and what was applicable a couple hundred years ago, is not necessarily applicable today.
Conservatives, be they fiscal or social, advocate for less government involvement. Liberals, be they fiscal or social, advocate for more government involvement.
The language we use today? By today's language, social conservatives are the ones who are against gay marriage, against abortion, and against legalized drugs. Sounds like gov't involvement to me.
Glitch"Conservatives, be they fiscal or social, advocate for less government involvement. Liberals, be they fiscal or social, advocate for more government involvement."
Each group in your narrow minded definition represents the luny fringe of each party, and together 5% of America. 95% of Americans do not exist in such an Orwellian, close-minded state of mind. They understand nuance, they want to listen to those they differ with, and apply best practices from everyone. They recall the awesome results we got nationally regarding the economy of the late 90s from a partnership b/w a DLC Democrat and Fiscally Conservative House Speaker. In one party rule of both stripes since, the results have not come close to those glory days.
Glitch, I hardly believe one Congress of 2 years represents 200 years of Socially Liberal thoughts, any more than I'd judge all social conservs off of one person like yourself. I can see the BIg picture, not just a small subset.
I am not referring to just the last two years, I am referring to all liberals going back as far you like. For example,
Social Security;
MediCare/MedicAid;
Affirmative Action;
"War on Poverty";
"The Great Society"; etc., etc.
These are all examples of socially liberal ideologies, and every one of them a prime example of more government involvement in our lives and being completely fiscally irresponsible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn
Where I hold officials accountable is the ability to differntiate acceptance vs payment.
Glitch"A social conservative is someone who advocates for less government involvement with regard to social issues." LOL, while they pass out anti-abortion fliers Sunday before election in their hypocritically IRS 501.C3 tax-exempt churches where they scream keep gov't out of our lives, but not the inverse. When they are not bombing clinics in their spare time.
People are allowed to hold whatever views they want. As a social conservative, I believe the federal government has absolutely no business involving itself in abortions, marriage, deliberate discrimination, or even providing a social "safety net." These issues belong with either the State legislatures or the people, but not the federal government.
They are allowed to hold any views they wish, and I am delighted extremists like yourself, for my entire life, will always be a minority unable to effect change.
Glitch, SS fiscally irresponsible-LOL. It has run a SURPLUS over its life (and into the future had the funds not been seized), usurped by other spending, and imagine how much consumer spending which drives our economy would be reduced by destitute parents living with kids-the case decades back. Elderly led nation in poverty rates 40 years ago, at a rate highest in First World nations. The real problem is we have no laws preventing the sweeping of funds for other purposes, at either state or national levels. Most states also require all funds, even many dedicated ones, to go into general fund.
People are missing the SS big pic, looming problems are NOT ongoing. We have a baby bust post baby boom, but 40 years from now, a baby bust would be supporting a baby bust generation retired, and that again creates a sustainable basis. The problems beyond usurping funds, are based on the ratio active vs retired for at most 2 decades.
Everyone I've met, listened to on TV, or read about on the internet who identifies as a fiscal conservative is also anti-abortion and gay marriage, and is usually a staunch Christian.
I am against 5 wars, the thousands coming out of my check, and the business as usual from D.C. the debt ceiling histrionics infuriated me. I have an advanced degree and am against Wall St bailouts...Im also sick of divisive b.s and religious crap we have seen since the 1980's and Rev Jim Baker. Any candidate touting fundamentalism is out.
I am Indep, and neither side has a decent candidiate with answers on economy.
Hey Pubs and dems...Indeps and Swing voters still count
Glitch, Social conservs are BIG gov't, simply big in involving gov't in individuals choices ..i.e. abortion, gay marriage, etc. BANS = Gov't involvement.
They are hypocrites.
Libertarians are small gov't in EVERY sense.
Not to mention, social conservatives want government involvement (taxpayer money) used for the War on Drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc... To come to think of it, considering all of these needs for government involvement, how can social conservatives be fiscally conservative?
fiscal conservatism and social liberalism are not mutually exclusive. and there are ways to be fiscally responsible, and still help pay for social programs. the key word here is responsibility.
Everyone I've met, listened to on TV, or read about on the internet who identifies as a fiscal conservative is also anti-abortion and gay marriage, and is usually a staunch Christian.
Well then, I guess you've never heard of a Libertarian.
Everyone I've met, listened to on TV, or read about on the internet who identifies as a fiscal conservative is also anti-abortion and gay marriage, and is usually a staunch Christian.
I'm good with gay marriage but abortion is murder. And by the way, the Tea Party Patriots make no case on social issues.
As I have always said if marriage is something everyone should aspire to, and I do believe that is the ideal, then gays should be able to marry. In fact, married people live longer. I don't know how their marriage would impact anyone else's marriage, negatively or positively. I still think the religious institutions should follow their doctrine, though. And I don't think anyone's lifestyle belongs being taught in a classroom. I'm currently not married nor am I gay nor would I vote for anyone based on that issue one way or the other.
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.
. I have an advanced degree and am against Wall St bailouts...Im also sick of divisive b.s and religious crap we have seen since the 1980's and Rev Jim Baker. Any candidate touting fundamentalism is out. 
