(06-22-2014 08:27 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote: I want to hear your idea of a socially liberal. fiscally conservative world. Conservatives are born that way. We don't get our ideology from a book.
No you don't. I've already given it to you several times, and you just b1tch and moan when I do. I thought maybe reading someone else saying the same thing might make an impact, particularly when the someone else is a Nobel laureate whose Nobel is not a joke. I'll repeat it:
Social liberal = freedom from Big Brother, government not in your bedroom
Social conservative = theocracy, imposing views of group in power onto everybody, government in your bedroom
Fiscal conservative = minimal (but not anarchic) levels of taxation, spending, and government micromanagement, government not in your wallet
Fiscal liberal = maximum taxing, spending, and redistributing, government in your wallet
If that's not the way you want to define it, who cares? When I use the terms, that's what I mean because that's the way I define them.
(This post was last modified: 06-22-2014 09:24 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
(06-22-2014 08:27 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote: I want to hear your idea of a socially liberal. fiscally conservative world. Conservatives are born that way. We don't get our ideology from a book.
No you don't. I've already given it to you several times, and you just b1tch and moan when I do. I thought maybe reading someone else saying the same thing might make an impact, particularly when the someone else is a Nobel laureate whose Nobel is not a joke. I'll repeat it:
Social liberal = freedom from Big Brother, government not in your bedroom
Social conservative = theocracy, imposing views of group in power onto everybody, government in your bedroom
Fiscal conservative = minimal (but not anarchic) levels of taxation, spending, and government micromanagement, government not in your wallet
Fiscal liberal = maximum taxing, spending, and redistributing, government in your wallet
If that's not the way you want to define it, who cares? When I use the terms, that's what I mean because that's the way I define them.
That's not social liberalism my friend.
I get that you want government out of your life(we all do), but you haven't defined what that means.
If you are socially liberal, you are not for government out of your life because liberalism itself believes in government intervention.
One dangerous thing is the rush for a "legacy". Everyone wants "sweeping" and "comprehensive" legislation immediately implementing or axing policy. In doing this, the government no longer focuses, or really cares about, the legislative process.
Another is the uniformity of party from the national level all the way down to the very local. That makes people look toward the federal level for answers/solutions. In many situations it is a case of "barking up the wrong tree". We've wanted to reform healthcare, but all that could be done by states, only requiring the feds to ensure reciprocity and mobility between states. Barked up the wrong tree and we ended up with Obamacare.
(06-22-2014 08:41 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote: I beg to differ.
Being born with an ideology and indoctrination from the cradle are two different things.
I am aware of that, but I believe we are born with a predisposition to be one or the other.
You know that logic opens you up for some interesting discussion about other issues.
I don't care. My ideology is settled and it is sound.
the pinnacle of arrogance. Total lack of humility. This is precisely the attitude ascribed to the religious right. " I know it all, I'm right and I'm not gonna learn a damn thing new." Who does this remind you of? I'd say muslim fanatics for starters
(06-22-2014 08:44 PM)Smaug Wrote: Being born with an ideology and indoctrination from the cradle are two different things.
I am aware of that, but I believe we are born with a predisposition to be one or the other.
You know that logic opens you up for some interesting discussion about other issues.
I don't care. My ideology is settled and it is sound.
the pinnacle of arrogance. Total lack of humility. This is precisely the attitude ascribed to the religious right. " I know it all, I'm right and I'm not gonna learn a damn thing new." Who does this remind you of? I'd say muslim fanatics for starters
Nowhere did I mention religion. You have drifted off into a fantasy of left wing anger.
(06-22-2014 09:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: No you don't. I've already given it to you several times, and you just b1tch and moan when I do. I thought maybe reading someone else saying the same thing might make an impact, particularly when the someone else is a Nobel laureate whose Nobel is not a joke. I'll repeat it:
Social liberal = freedom from Big Brother, government not in your bedroom
Social conservative = theocracy, imposing views of group in power onto everybody, government in your bedroom
Fiscal conservative = minimal (but not anarchic) levels of taxation, spending, and government micromanagement, government not in your wallet
Fiscal liberal = maximum taxing, spending, and redistributing, government in your wallet
If that's not the way you want to define it, who cares? When I use the terms, that's what I mean because that's the way I define them.
That's not social liberalism my friend.
I get that you want government out of your life(we all do), but you haven't defined what that means.
If you are socially liberal, you are not for government out of your life because liberalism itself believes in government intervention.
Let's try them one at a time.
What are your views on gay marriage?
I've pretty well defined my views, and nobody is pointing a gun at me and forcing me to answer your questions, and I really have no interest in tediously replowing the same ground.
You can define social liberalism any way you want to for your own purposes. But you can't define social liberalism as requiring government intervention, and then complain that libertarians are social liberals, because government intervention is anathema to libertarians.
You can either describe libertarians as social liberals and define social liberalism in a manner consistent with libertarianism, or define social liberalism the way you have and not say that libertarians are social liberals. I don't care enough about your opinion to give a give a rat's ass which one you do, but if you're going to be honest, you're going to have to do one or the other.
As for gay marriage, the libertarian position is that it's none of the government's f-ing business, since libertarians don't like government intervention. Which I guess means they're not social liberals.
(This post was last modified: 06-23-2014 09:53 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
I've read two pages on this subject and there's no clear solution to our problems proposed by any posters. I've said that what we need is term limits for our senators and representatives. Someone posted that we already had it that it was called the vote. But it would be fine and dandy if we had educated voters but the ones we have only think of entitlements and who will give them more. In a nutshell voters are stupid and greedy. If we had term limits we wouldn't have the Pelosis, Reids, Franks,and yes even the Republican "go to the grave as elected officials". There's corruption in every facet of government now and they aren't looking for the best interests of the people and America,they are just trying to screw each other by damming every law good or bad if it wasn't proposed by their respective party. They give each other raises at every whim without us the voters having a say in it. Someone posted a thread asking whether we donated to a certain party or not. Heck, I wouldn't give any party an extra cent of my money. I'd soon throw it in the river for what good it does. At least it wouldn't perpetuate a system that is not working and as sure as there is a devil having a monarch is just so stupid it's not even worth thinking about it. Anybody want another George the Turd, ahem, Third?
We're doomed as a people unless big changes occur and I don't mean Obama Hopeless Changes either but good God approved changes.
(06-23-2014 08:32 PM)tigerjaws Wrote: This country (the USA) is damn big....I cannot imagine it being properly governed by a few people.
Which is why most governmental functions should be reserved to the state and local governments.
BINGO. This is why I say that going to the federal government with anything besides issues of civil rights and defense might just be barking up the wrong tree.
