Fiscal Conservatives in - Social Conservatives out.

Dixie said:
No one is telling you what you can or can not do by prohibiting your judges from passing laws from the bench. ALL of our laws tell us ALL what we can and can not do, and ALL our laws are based and rooted in some foundational moral code. Without this, society collapses into lawless anarchy.... maybe that's what you WANT to happen?

Yeah, 'what the fuck ever' is right! WE THE PEOPLE have every right to establish ANYTHING WE PLEASE as the law of the land, and your immoral unethical ass doesn't have to agree with it or like it.
Click to expand...

You're conflicted and fucked up. First you say all our laws are based on a moral code, then you say that the people can pass any law they want. That's a complete contradiction. Are you really this fucked up inside?
 
AssHatZombie said:
You're conflicted and fucked up. First you say all our laws are based on a moral code, then you say that the people can pass any law they want. That's a complete contradiction. Are you really this fucked up inside?
Click to expand...

There is nothing "fucked up" about what I said, and there is no contradiction. We do not live in a society where 9 people in robes determine the rules we live by. We live in a representative republic which operates under the principles of democracy. We The People... decide what our rules and guidelines are, no one else... WE THE PEOPLE! Got it?
 
Dixie said:
There is nothing "fucked up" about what I said, and there is no contradiction. We do not live in a society where 9 people in robes determine the rules we live by. We live in a representative republic which operates under the principles of democracy. We The People... decide what our rules and guidelines are, no one else... WE THE PEOPLE! Got it?
Click to expand...

And we the people always make laws based on a moral code? Fascinating.
 
In reality our democracy is broken anyway, with campaign donors dictating the legislative agenda, not voters. This is due to the reality that people respond to advertising like programmed automatons. the media should be destroyed.
 
Dixie said:
No, what you are suggesting is that we accept your decadent social lifestyle and just not participate if we don't want to. Well, we don't want to raise our kids in a decadent society, we want to instill values and morals and set an example for our kids. The rules of society can't be dictated by a bunch of immoral clowns, while the rest of us decent people sit on the sidelines helpless to do anything about it. We have as much of a right to 'impose our values' on society as you have to impose your immorality on society. It cuts both ways, and if you don't understand that, tough shit.
Click to expand...

Your morality is ridiculous. The only morality worth respecting is the reduction of human suffering, which conservatives couldn't give two shits about.
 
Dixie said:
There is a profound and fundamental disconnect when it comes to the non-social conservative understanding of social conservatives in general. You have essentially become bigoted in your views of social conservatives, and think of them as some radical religious wing that wants to impose their religious dogma on the rest of society. While there may be a fringe element who feel that way, by-and-large, most social conservatives simply oppose the federal government intrusion on their social conservative values. We don't want federal courts deciding these issues for us! Most of us are perfectly willing to put ANY of these social issues on the ballot, and allowing the people of the state to decide for themselves. Whether it's gambling, prostitution, legalizing pot, abortion, gay marriage... just let THE PEOPLE decide! Where is that not conducive with civil libertarianism? Shouldn't the PEOPLE get to have a say in these things? Why should social conservatives be squelched and denied any voice in the process? This is our country too!
Click to expand...

Having your freedoms decided by majority vote is not freedom. Freedom is freedom.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
I call your bullshit. These so called christian conservatives are just latching on to the TEA parties because Bush embarrassed them. they'll jump ship faster than the dems are leaving Obama.
Click to expand...

14% of tea party supporters have a negative opinion of Sarah Palin. Tea party supporters are the only group in American society that has a positive opinion of Sarah Palin (at large, her approval is a stunning 22%). The Tea Party should just man up and rename itself the convention to nominate Sarah Palin for president.
 
As long as socially destructive voices like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh remain wildly popular with so called 'fiscal' conservatives, I don't believe a word of it.

And, if their 'fiscal' conservative ideas are even implemented, it would be a social catastrophe. Their 'fiscal' solutions require some group of Americans to evaporate.

If we command our wealth, we shall be rich and free; if our wealth commands us, we are poor indeed.
Edmund Burke
 
Dixie said:
There is nothing "fucked up" about what I said, and there is no contradiction. We do not live in a society where 9 people in robes determine the rules we live by. We live in a representative republic which operates under the principles of democracy. We The People... decide what our rules and guidelines are, no one else... WE THE PEOPLE! Got it?
Click to expand...

Democracy and a representative republic based on democratic values are two different things. There are more white Americans than black, so it's possible if the 1964 Civil Rights Bill was put to a referendum it could be repealed.

Your thinking is not fucked up, but it is flawed.

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
Thomas Jefferson
 
Yuke.

"Old-fashioned laissez-faire in its pure form has fewer proponents today, but it is still conventional, among experts as well as in common discourse, to speak of "the economy" as an entity as though it were quite separate from government and society. Instead of these familiar but, we think, misleading distinctions we shall use the older, more accurate term "political economy." This term implies that economic activity is part of a larger social whole; the economy can be completely isolated from politics only in a game." http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=108


"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." John Maynard Keynes
 
Bfgrn said:
Democracy and a representative republic based on democratic values are two different things. There are more white Americans than black, so it's possible if the 1964 Civil Rights Bill was put to a referendum it could be repealed.
Click to expand...

Yes, it certainly could be repealed, if enough white people opposed it, but we'd have never passed it in the first place, if that was the case.

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...

And Thomas Jefferson is much of the reason we have a "Representative Republic" and not a pure Democracy. I didn't say we shouldn't have representative republic government, I said we shouldn't have 9 people in robes dictating what rules we all live by.... you want THAT kind of government, move to Pakistan or Iran! That's what THEY do! A group of Mullahs and Clerics decide what rules you live by, and that's what you do if you want to live. Here in America, THE PEOPLE have a vote and a say in our rules for society. You don't have to LIKE what they decide, you have every right to protest it and speak your mind, but that's the system we established.
 
Dixie said:
And Thomas Jefferson is much of the reason we have a "Representative Republic" and not a pure Democracy. I didn't say we shouldn't have representative republic government, I said we shouldn't have 9 people in robes dictating what rules we all live by.... you want THAT kind of government, move to Pakistan or Iran! That's what THEY do! A group of Mullahs and Clerics decide what rules you live by, and that's what you do if you want to live. Here in America, THE PEOPLE have a vote and a say in our rules for society. You don't have to LIKE what they decide, you have every right to protest it and speak your mind, but that's the system we established.
Click to expand...


So I guess you think these lawsuits about "ObamaCare" are horseshit and the courts shouldn't overturn the law.
 
NigelTufnel said:
So I guess you think these lawsuits about "ObamaCare" are horseshit and the courts shouldn't overturn the law.
Click to expand...

Obamacare was passed by a renegade Congress who ignored the will of the people.... We are also not ruled by a group of liberal fucktards in Congress! WE THE PEOPLE..... Read it, understand it!
 
Dixie said:
Obamacare was passed by a renegade Congress who ignored the will of the people.... We are also not ruled by a group of liberal fucktards in Congress! WE THE PEOPLE..... Read it, understand it!
Click to expand...


Summing up: you're saying we should have a representative republic, you don't think the courts should overturn the laws passed by elected representatives, but in the case of "Obamacare" you think the law should be overturned by the courts.

That's fucking stupid.
 
NigelTufnel said:
So I guess you think these lawsuits about "ObamaCare" are horseshit and the courts shouldn't overturn the law.
Click to expand...

Yea, Dix is saying 'we shouldn't have 9 people in robes dictating what rules we all live by', BUT we should have partisan polls dictate the rules we live by.
 
http://www.tnr.com/article/books-an.../arthur-brooks-free-enterprise-big-government

"The premise of The Battle is that America is fighting a “culture war,” but this culture war is not over social issues—it is over economic ones. A culture war, of course, is a zero-sum fight between two antithetical values in which compromise is impossible. That is how Brooks portrays the conflict between statism and free enterprise that has been unleashed by Obama’s radical attack on American values. “These competing visions,” warns Brooks, “are not reconcilable: We must choose.”

It is a curious premise. After all, economics is very different from social issues precisely because it is rife with positive-sum outcomes (i.e., prosperity) and because it pertains to technical questions amenable to data and difference-splitting. What’s more, Democrats do not advocate communism and Republicans do not advocate anarchy. Both parties favor some mix of market and state. Even Paul Ryan, whose purist small-government vision has enthralled the conservative movement (and who forms a mutual admiration society with Brooks), advocates a federal government that consumes 19 percent of the economy. Democrats advocate a government that consumes, in the long run, around one-quarter of the economy. Is it really not possible to imagine a compromise between these two visions?"
 
Dixie said:
There is a profound and fundamental disconnect when it comes to the non-social conservative understanding of social conservatives in general. You have essentially become bigoted in your views of social conservatives, and think of them as some radical religious wing that wants to impose their religious dogma on the rest of society. While there may be a fringe element who feel that way, by-and-large, most social conservatives simply oppose the federal government intrusion on their social conservative values. We don't want federal courts deciding these issues for us! Most of us are perfectly willing to put ANY of these social issues on the ballot, and allowing the people of the state to decide for themselves. Whether it's gambling, prostitution, legalizing pot, abortion, gay marriage... just let THE PEOPLE decide! Where is that not conducive with civil libertarianism? Shouldn't the PEOPLE get to have a say in these things? Why should social conservatives be squelched and denied any voice in the process? This is our country too!
Click to expand...

Yes, you get a voice in how you live your life. What you don't get is a say in how others live there lives when it does not effect you.

The idea that a popular vote is the answer is ridiculous. This nation is not now, nor has it ever been, a democracy. The majority do not get to make all the rules simply because there are more of them.
 
WinterBorn said:
Yes, you get a voice in how you live your life. What you don't get is a say in how others live there lives when it does not effect you.

The idea that a popular vote is the answer is ridiculous. This nation is not now, nor has it ever been, a democracy. The majority do not get to make all the rules simply because there are more of them.
Click to expand...

But it does effect how I live my life if it effects the society I have to raise my children in. That's the whole point. We have all kinds of laws and rules of societal behavior, things we don't allow here... We can't run around naked with bones in our noses, like they do in Africa! We are civilized people, we have a civilized culture, and that culture includes decent moral values.

I get a voice in what rules and guidelines govern my society, because I live in a FREE representative republic which is rooted in the principles of democracy... notice I never said we live in a democracy.

You're an intellectual elitist who thinks we should let 9 judges determine our rules of society, because the people are too stupid and dumb to know what's best for them! You'd rather live in a society where intellectual elitists decide for everyone, instead of a society where the PEOPLE have a voice. I reject that, I think it's absurd, and I think you are a total fool for believing in such an idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top