(06-22-2014 04:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: (06-22-2014 02:15 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote: (06-22-2014 12:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: (06-22-2014 11:45 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote: What I've already stated. Social liberalism promotes laziness, corruption and a breakdown of the family unit. It makes it all about the individual. All of which are detrimental to the mindset and system we used to build this nation...
How so? Specifics?
When I've asked for specifics before, you always give FISCALLY liberal policies in support of your position, not socially liberal policies. I agree that FISCALLY liberal policies promote those things. I'm asking how SOCIALLY liberal policies promote them? What socially liberal policies promote which of those interests, and how?
We've been over this a thousand times and I have given you multiple examples. Multiple. Social liberalism always invites legislation which always grows the size of government. Whether that be local or federal.
MORE IMPORTANTLY
It also erodes at the moral backbone that we could not have built this nation without. How about you think about it for while. Liberalism is an ideology just like conservatism. It has moving parts that are intertwined.
Social liberalism is the tool this administration is using to keep this country pacified and occupied while they dismantle the Republic.
Why don't you give me one more example, and then you would have given me one.
You need examples of how social liberalism has damaged this country?
You need examples of how social liberalism and fiscal conservatism is a walking contradiction? Really? That leads me to believe you understand neither. It's become a flashy catch phrase being thrown around among the populist crowd.
Take Healthcare. In order to address a problem of 10% of the population the Social Liberal will impose a National “solution” on nearly 100%. In the 70 years it took to get to that point it could not be addressed in any other way? No, because the end goal is not the elimination of the problem but the implementation of something on a much more grand scale, the tip of the iceburg, “for the greater good”.
Because of the “cost” to others undesirable behavior – obesity, excessive eating, types of foods, being uninsured – including inaction are now seen as being impactful on “the whole” and need to be curtailed. There cannot be a free marketplace because people don’t know better and need to be told the right way to do things, have a penalty imposed on them in order to comply. Failure to comply means the suppression of another’s “right” to healthcare.
If you speak to a Social Liberal about Healthcare they view it as a great leap forward never mind the great cost – clearly visible in countless other Countries, even our own Governmental budget – or erosion of personal liberties. It “imposes” fairness – how can that be bad? The fact that the Supreme Court found it Constitutional great – the fact that the Government can now tax you for inaction, totally acceptable. Social engineering on a grand scale.
Firearms:
The Second Amendment is a great example of the expendability of an established right by a Social Liberal. It’s an inherent freedom. It’s been upheld twice as a personal liberty extended to all US Citizens by the Supreme Court. When practiced by law abiding citizens it reduces crime and is nearly transparent. It’s a check and balance against a corrupt Government, another economic engine.
The Social Liberal believes that Guns are bad and you should not have them. They will work every day to take them away from you and everyone else no matter the cost or the chilling effect on that right.
It’s amazing how the same people who take the moral high ground on firearms and their impact on human life conveniently shift their moral perspective in other areas – classic Liberal moral flexibility. The definition of “IS”.
Substitute the First Amendment anywhere you would see the Second Amendment. There would be an open revolt even by the Social Liberal as it would prevent their message from being disseminated (as well as the ability to suppress others).
Government:
Government should not be involved in social engineering however a Social Liberal will tell you again and again – the Government, in many cases, is the only thing that can “do or control/make fair xyz for all people”. It’s a constant justification for Federalism, another anti-conservative practice.
Fiscal Conservatives believe in smaller Government and a basic set of reasonable operational guidelines. The result is a less costly Government less involved in the “day to day operations” of peoples lives. Social programs are very clearly massive Administrative undertakings with a ton of overhead, duplication and cost and are typically anathema to Fiscal conservative.
Social Programs – Social Security, SNAP, MediCare, HealthCare, etc. – are massively costly. That is absolutely undeniable. Gun registries, bans, etc. are also massively costly. They also absolutely ensure that you pay for other peoples choices while being able to order them around. It’s the worst of both worlds wrapped up in the Nanny blanket of compassion and Utopia.
Fiscal Conservatism and Social Liberalism are contradictory. You can’t want to expand Government and make it cheaper, you can’t force people to do things and call it Freedom or Equality and you can’t create Rights while suppressing established ones.
http://www.redstate.com/diary/gork/2012/...servatism/
Abortion and government provided birth control is another great example and we can definitely explore that further if you still need clarification.
