The Importance of Social Conservatism as it Relates to the GOP

[Lorca]

I'm all for abandoning the DEA and correctly placing that enforcement back to the states where it belongs. But don't believe that Nixon, who was really a Democrat, was alone and instrumental in our Federal drug enforcement efforts.

I'm all for that too. One thing the PBS special said was that when Prohibition passed, the states (many of which already had some anti-alc legislation) expected the feds to take over enforcement. The feds, when they passed it, expected the states to all step up. The states could not....way too expensive. And so they came begging the feds for $$. And it grew into a huge corruptive monster.

State enforcement was too expensive. So I think we should leave it up to the states, maybe we'd get out of people's lives and just put them in the very expensive court and prison system when they actually commit crimes on other people.

 

[midcan5]

The answer to this is simple; Christianity is a Conservative belief of personal independence from the State; which should rightly be held in suspicion and minimalized. When did Jesus suggest that the State should take care of the poor???

You see in this comment the exact lack of Christian sentiment now evident in America. Morality and empathy are missing in the self centered narcissistic right wing and sadly much of the left too. We have become a nation of personal consumers whose only values are individualistic self absorption.

"Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today. For thirty years we have made a virtue out of the pursuit of material self-interest: indeed, this very pursuit now constitutes whatever remains of our sense of collective purpose. We know what things cost but have no idea what they are worth. We no longer ask of a judicial ruling or a legislative act: is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right? Will it help bring about a better society or a better world? Those used to be the political questions, even if they invited no easy answers. We must learn once again to pose them." Tony Judt 'Ill Fares the Land'

A country where the below is accepted and the victim blamed. Christians had better hope their God is cold hearted market fundamentalist like them.

"The current Population Survey data show that 15 percent of Americans, roughly 46.5 million people, live at or below the government-defined poverty line—which, as most who work with the hungry, the homeless, the uninsured, and the underpaid or unemployed know, is itself an inadequate measure of poverty. By more reasonable measures, poverty in this country is even more pervasive." http://www.thenation.com/article/176242/americas-shameful-poverty-stats

“What should we do,” Abramsky asks, “with someone like Emily?” His answer is not to blame the victim, and he skewers conservatives for doing so. Whether poverty “is caused by dysfunction, or the dysfunction is itself a product of the poverty, or, as is likely, the dysfunction and the poverty interact in ever more complex feedback loops, for the larger community to wash its hands of the problem represents an extraordinary failure of the moral imagination."" http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/books/review/sasha-abramskys-american-way-of-poverty.html

 

[Robo]

I'm all for abandoning the DEA and correctly placing that enforcement back to the states where it belongs. But don't believe that Nixon, who was really a Democrat, was alone and instrumental in our Federal drug enforcement efforts.

I’m for announcing to the nation from the Bully Pulpit the end of the Drug War and guaranteeing the process of repealing every State and Federal drug law that violates our Constitution, namely amendments 4, 9 & 14, just for openers. If the States can constitutionally regulate the sale of alcohol, (a class “A” narcotic), then there should be no reasonable argument that States cannot constitutionally regulate the sale of any and all narcotics.

Nixon was a Republican! As much as y’all righties would like to give all of your crooks to the Democrats, the party that nominated and got the bastard Nixon elected is well documented. As a matter of fact numerous Democrats mostly from the south and mostly the most racist Democrats during Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” became Republicans and y’all welcomed them with open arms. Now y’all wonder why and how the anti-Lincoln Party manages to capture the black vote. Ain’t no mystery to me. Thank Tricky Dick again for that.

Aside from all of that the only real difference between Republicans & Democrats anyhow is WHO the BIG government bastards allow to feed at the government trough first.

 

[maineman]

So the "final solution" in your twisted world is to eliminate Social Conservatism and allow one party leftist rule? Move to Cuba, your diseased ideology is welcome there. this country is far more Conservative than you think asshole.

and fortunately, far less conservative than YOU think.

you continually toss out that "final solution" bullshit every time it is apparent that your side is losing.

too funny.

 

[maineman]

The answer to this is simple; Christianity is a Conservative belief of personal independence from the State; which should rightly be held in suspicion and minimalized. When did Jesus suggest that the State should take care of the poor???

in fact, Christianity is a belief based upon loving the Lord and loving our neighbors as ourself. Any other definition is bullshit rationalization.

 

[evince]

False claim; as is typical from the uninformed emotional left, they are more inclined to fabricate strawmen than they are to deal in facts.

Please point to the section within our Constitution that states it is the Governments duty to be charitable. I can wait.

Where is the part that says the government shall NOT be charitable even when its in the country best interest, helps preserve the peace and creates a better work force and better innovation?


you are a sociopath


You don't see anything good coming from helping others

 

[maineman]

Liberals don't want to ELIMINATE social conservatives or social conservative thought. We simply want to have the conservatives sit in the back of the chamber and be polite and let the majority run the government until such time as they can convince a majority of Americans of the correctness of their policy ideas, at which time they can get their hand at running the government. That's how democracy works.

 

[Lorca]

Where is the part that says the government shall NOT be charitable even when its in the country best interest, helps preserve the peace and creates a better work force and better innovation?


you are a sociopath


You don't see anything good coming from helping others

The govt can be as charitable as it wants. What is is using? Govt employee volunteer hours?

It's about how it spends our tax money. THAT is indeed pretty well spelled out, even tho both Republicans and Democrats have little trouble doing what they want with it.

 

[Boris The Animal]

Liberals don't want to ELIMINATE social conservatives or social conservative thought. We simply want to have the conservatives sit in the back of the chamber and be polite and let the majority run the government until such time as they can convince a majority of Americans of the correctness of their policy ideas, at which time they can get their hand at running the government. That's how democracy works.

Sure you do. that's why your sick ideology is more akin to Marx and not America.

 

[The Dude]

Sure you do. that's why your sick ideology is more akin to Marx and not America.

We win because of white trash teabaggers like you

 

[maineman]

Sure you do. that's why your sick ideology is more akin to Marx and not America.

no. I don't. If social conservatives cannot sell their ideology to the majority of Americans, they DESERVE to be marginalized and set out to pasture. Sorry. You peddle a lousy product and then blame the people for not buying it. Sucks to be you, I'd imagine.

By the way, in your dream world, what "final solution" would you advocate for liberals who would become marginalized like you have been in the real world?

 

[Boris The Animal]

no. I don't. If social conservatives cannot sell their ideology to the majority of Americans, they DESERVE to be marginalized and set out to pasture. Sorry. You peddle a lousy product and then blame the people for not buying it. Sucks to be you, I'd imagine.

By the way, in your dream world, what "final solution" would you advocate for liberals who would become marginalized like you have been in the real world?

Only thing is, Social Liberalism is 100% wrong on all fronts.

 

[maineman]

Only thing is, Social Liberalism is 100% wrong on all fronts.

I understand that that is your deeply held opinion. YOur job is to sell that to the American people. It sure as hell isn't MY job. Quit whining and go do it, and if you try really hard, and somehow, you still come up short, then accept the fact that the majority of Americans don't agree with you. You can still try with all your heart to convince them otherwise, but if they ain't buyin' it, then you have to at least accept that, according to the very framework of our democracy, the folks that disagree with you, because they are in the majority, get to make the fucking decisions and NOT YOU!

sorry

oh... and you didn't answer my question:

In your dream world, what "final solution" would you advocate for liberals who would become marginalized and irrelevant like you have been in the real world?

 

[Robo]

Where is the part that says the government shall NOT be charitable even when its in the country best interest, helps preserve the peace and creates a better work force and better innovation?

Right here Goober.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.” (Amendment 10, United States Constitution)

 

[Robo]

Only thing is, Social Liberalism is 100% wrong on all fronts.

WTF, Somebody should have told the founders that before they wrote that very ”socially liberal" Bill Of Rights, huh?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Liberals don't want to ELIMINATE social conservatives or social conservative thought. We simply want to have the conservatives sit in the back of the chamber and be polite and let the majority run the government until such time as they can convince a majority of Americans of the correctness of their policy ideas, at which time they can get their hand at running the government. That's how democracy works.

Social conservatives are very touch on that score because they are simply on the wrong side of history and are acutely aware of that.

We have had multiple times in this nation where social conservatives have precipitated political crises in our country and every single time, without exception, from The Revolutionary War to today, social conservatives have lost. Everytime there has been a movement to increase and expands individual liberties and freedoms those movements have always been opposed by social conservatives and every time they have lost.

The problem that social conservatives have is that they see the world changing in ways they don't like, do not want to adapt to those changes and are angry cause their world is changing around them and because they haven't adapted they have lost relevency. Since they have lost some relevency, that have also lost influence. That's why they are angry.

 

[Lorca]

Social conservatives are very touch on that score because they are simply on the wrong side of history and are acutely aware of that.

We have had multiple times in this nation where social conservatives have precipitated political crises in our country and every single time, without exception, from The Revolutionary War to today, social conservatives have lost. Everytime there has been a movement to increase and expands individual liberties and freedoms those movements have always been opposed by social conservatives and every time they have lost.

The problem that social conservatives have is that they see the world changing in ways they don't like, do not want to adapt to those changes and are angry cause their world is changing around them and because they haven't adapted they have lost relevency. Since they have lost some relevency, that have also lost influence. That's why they are angry.

The recent invasion of Iraq would be an exception to that. (Not the only exception, but certainly notable.) Political crises here and spreading across the ME, more individual liberties infringed on.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The recent invasion of Iraq would be an exception to that. (Not the only exception, but certainly notable.) Political crises here and spreading across the ME, more individual liberties infringed on.

And who was largely responsible for the cluster fuck that was Iraq? Social conservative.

 

[Boris The Animal]

Social conservatives are very touch on that score because they are simply on the wrong side of history and are acutely aware of that.

We have had multiple times in this nation where social conservatives have precipitated political crises in our country and every single time, without exception, from The Revolutionary War to today, social conservatives have lost. Everytime there has been a movement to increase and expands individual liberties and freedoms those movements have always been opposed by social conservatives and every time they have lost.

The problem that social conservatives have is that they see the world changing in ways they don't like, do not want to adapt to those changes and are angry cause their world is changing around them and because they haven't adapted they have lost relevency. Since they have lost some relevency, that have also lost influence. That's why they are angry.

No, it's because social libe4ralism is the lazy man's way in life.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

No, it's because social libe4ralism is the lazy man's way in life.

It is also, apparently, the way of the man who doesn't feel the need to worry about other people's sex lives, religious beliefs or orientation.