Who's the one person most responsible for the implosion of the Rebulican party?

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Uhmmm, no. What makes someone a social conservative is how conservative their social views are. What makes someone an authoritarian vs. a libertarian is how much they desire to use government to push and enforce them.

Oh? I totally disagree, and I think you're being vague with your second statement. Others will have to make up their mind I suppose. But my personal view on abortion is that it is morally wrong, but I would oppose any government opposition to it. So what does that make me?

That makes you socially conservative on abortion, but a libertarian. Views on government interference cut both ways, which is why they are not socially conservative or liberal. Look at it from the other side. If you believe in government non-intervention then maybe you believe the government shouldn't step in to mandate certain minority protections from discrimination. (a decidedly conservative idea) Not because you are for discrimination or don't believe that it occurs, but because you don't think it's the federal government's place.

Does that make you more socially conservative? Of course not, it just makes you still a libertarian.

EDIT: To be fair though, a lot of these terms have considerable fuzziness and overlap between them, so I think we're largely just arguing definitions that really aren't that clear to begin with.

I think you're contradicting yourself here.

Though I share some agreement with your edit.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234
"Liberal" is more than the position, it's also the reaosn for it. So I would not say Paul's positions are 'liberal' in their reason, only in their position.

He has his own ideology for those positions which is not about the same thing as liberals, generally. His position on abortion is for different reasons than either side's reaosns.

he's following an ideology that puts 'the role of government' above the morality of abortion issues.

Am I the only one who thinks this is absurd? I'm sorry Craig, but your whole post here looks like a really bad attempt to spin.

What reason is there for being socially liberal other than understanding that the State cannot and should not attempt to regulate, define, nor enforce morality? Your analogy, which I did not quote above, is not only irrelevant, but borderline racist.

You should know by now bamacre that Craig is nothing but spin. It's all he has. Four legs good, two legs bad. Why? Because Craig says so.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: bamacre
-snip-
Again, what is often misunderstood is that what makes one a social conservative is not one's personal views, but their willingness and desire to use government to push and enforce them.

Uhmmm, no. What makes someone a social conservative is how conservative their social views are. What makes someone an authoritarian vs. a libertarian is how much they desire to use government to push and enforce them.

Oh? I totally disagree, and I think you're being vague with your second statement. Others will have to make up their mind I suppose. But my personal view on abortion is that it is morally wrong, but I would oppose any government opposition to it. So what does that make me?

Pardon me jumping in here, but I must agree with eski.

Under your definition there would be no social liberals.

Do not the Democrats use government to "enforce and push" their views?

Is discrimination not against the law?

Are hate crimes not against the law?

Is dumping of toxic waste not against the law?

Is interfering with an abortion clinic not against the law?

Gay marriage is their current social liberal crusade, and what do they want to do? Pass a law requiring that everyone must recognize it. As it currently stands many companies etc already do recognize it, but such a law would force all others to recognize it.

Both liberal and conservative use the law to enforce their own personal interpretation of social policy.

Edit: Fixed formatting

Fern

 

[GoodRevrnd]

I'm going to have to throw my vote to Jesus.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Fern
Pardon me jumping in here, but I must agree with eski.

Under your definition there would be no social liberals.

Do not the Democrats use government to "enforce and push" their views?

Social views, yes, sometimes they do.

Is discrimination not against the law?

In many situations, yes.

Are hate crimes not against the law?

Unnecessarily, yes. Crime is crime.

Is dumping of toxic waste not against the law?

IMO, this is a matter of property rights.

Is interfering with an abortion clinic not against the law?

Same as above.

Gay marriage is their current social liberal crusade, and what do they want to do? Pass a law requiring that everyone must recognize it.

As it currently stands many companies etc already do recognize it, but such a law would force all others to recognize it.

Wouldn't be a problem if it were not for our horrendous health care system.

Both liberal and conservative use the law to enforce their own personal interpretation of social policy.

And I never said otherwise.

Honestly, I disagree with your primary assertion that "there would be no social liberals." We just don't have many, do we?