Social programs cost money.

(01-20-2010 03:05 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Social programs cost money.

This is not about social programs. This is about not being racist, sexist, homophobic, or religiously bigoted. And stopping the insanity of the drug war (or at bare minimum legalizing industrial hemp and medical marijuana) ... which I'd argue is a 50% fiscal conservatism issue.

Did someone say free toast?

(01-20-2010 01:43 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Nah. Those 40,000+ a year don't really exist.

Actually, they don't.
That's a made-up number, based on absurd application of a number of false assumptions.

(01-19-2010 09:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Fiscal conservatism, and tolerate moderation on the social issues.

BINGO!! Thank you...

(01-20-2010 06:51 PM)zeebart21 Wrote:  

(01-19-2010 09:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Fiscal conservatism, and tolerate moderation on the social issues.

BINGO!! Thank you...

Personally, I could care less who a person sleeps with, what they smoke, who they marry, or if they have an abortion up to 7 months, as long as they leave me alone.

(01-20-2010 10:05 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  or if they have an abortion up to 7 months,

I do, and I'm not a big proponent of the pro-life movement.

Dude, 7 months is fuken murder.

I agree... except for that exemption we've given women to murder their own children.

(01-20-2010 10:17 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-20-2010 10:05 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  or if they have an abortion up to 7 months,

I do, and I'm not a big proponent of the pro-life movement.

Dude, 7 months is fuken murder.

Abortion provider walked on a murder charge in Austin and he was doing up to seven months.

(01-20-2010 11:08 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(01-20-2010 10:17 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-20-2010 10:05 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  or if they have an abortion up to 7 months,

I do, and I'm not a big proponent of the pro-life movement.

Dude, 7 months is fuken murder.

Abortion provider walked on a murder charge in Austin and he was doing up to seven months.

So did OJ. I guess Nicole killed herself.

Dude, just because the current laws don't say it's so, doesn't mean it isn't so. A 7 month old is a viable human outside the womb.

(01-20-2010 12:23 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-20-2010 12:19 PM)Rebel Wrote:  On the governmental plane, I view social conservatism as tyranny. It's not the government's job to run people's personal lives.

I understand that. But given economics is a social interaction, it's impossible to have "social liberalism" with "fiscal conservatism".

But "liberalism" in social liberalism means the generally the same thing as "conservatism" in fiscal conservatism. The labels are flipped, but the meaning is the same.

The founding fathers were almost universally considered to be (classic now) liberals, not conservatives. Appeals to maximizing individual freedom & smaller, Constitutionally limited government, though mainly coming from conservatives now, are appeals to return to our classic liberal roots. It's the labels that have changed, not the meaning.

As for Jefferson, GGniner, absolutely he was a tyrant, at least in some aspects of his life. It is entirely possible for a person to by tyrannical in one aspect of his life and not in others. And anyone who believes that he has the right to own another human being is a tyrant, at least in my book.

As an aside, according to Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson thought the same. Not that it really matters because, as with anything else, it's the quality of the thought that matters, not the quality of the thinker. It's always disappointing to be reminded of how clearly he recognized the evils of slavery yet lacked the courage to do the one thing that was entirely within his power and free his own slaves. But it was a different time and he was just a man, as flawed as the rest of us.

Of course, if the prevailing punishment for homosexuality was death (in my two minutes of research it looks like that may have been the case), Jefferson might have been doing the best he could to mitigate the tyranny of others, making incremental progress instead of attempting to fix it in one fell swoop. So perhaps this is an example of his tyrannical attitudes, or perhaps this is actually an example of his liberal pragmatism, or possibly somewhere in between.

I'm for whatever gives the least amount of power to the federal government.

There.

(01-20-2010 11:20 PM)jh Wrote:  

(01-20-2010 12:23 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-20-2010 12:19 PM)Rebel Wrote:  On the governmental plane, I view social conservatism as tyranny. It's not the government's job to run people's personal lives.

I understand that. But given economics is a social interaction, it's impossible to have "social liberalism" with "fiscal conservatism".

But "liberalism" in social liberalism means the generally the same thing as "conservatism" in fiscal conservatism. The labels are flipped, but the meaning is the same.

No it doesn't. But thanks for playing.

(01-21-2010 08:04 AM)Rebel Wrote:  I'm for whatever gives the least amount of power to the federal government.

There.

+1

(01-20-2010 02:22 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-19-2010 09:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Fiscal conservatism, and tolerate moderation on the social issues.

If you go with fiscal conservatism, you are going to have to tolerate moderation on social issues because when all we have left are the rich and the poor. If they don't offer something to the poor, they will be out on their rears really fast(assuming they don't fix the election-which is a definate possibility).

With very few exceptions, low taxes and limited spending will always result in a smaller 'poor' class compared to a system of high taxes and high spending.

Caveat: Countries that practice Crony Capitalism and/or corruption will obviously not fit this model, and should not be considered free market in any version of the term. So any references to Latin American countries, Russia, the former Soviet '-stans', etc, do not apply. The authoritarian arm of government is alive and in control in many of these countries, despite their so-called "capitalist" statuses.

Furthermore, the definition of "poor" is a tricky one.

For instance, how many people in the US officially classified below the 'Poverty Line' own a car (a beater, but still a car, nonetheless), cell phone, home air conditioning unit, computer, television, etc? They may be struggling and not be living on easy street, but compared to what many other countries consider "poor", these are viewed as luxury items.

(01-21-2010 09:52 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  Furthermore, the definition of "poor" is a tricky one.

For instance, how many people in the US officially classified below the 'Poverty Line' own a car (a beater, but still a car, nonetheless), cell phone, home air conditioning unit, computer, television, etc? They may be struggling and not be living on easy street, but compared to what many other countries consider "poor", these are viewed as luxury items.

Don't forget to add in some cases, morbidly obese from overeating.....

(01-21-2010 09:56 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(01-21-2010 09:52 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  Furthermore, the definition of "poor" is a tricky one.

For instance, how many people in the US officially classified below the 'Poverty Line' own a car (a beater, but still a car, nonetheless), cell phone, home air conditioning unit, computer, television, etc? They may be struggling and not be living on easy street, but compared to what many other countries consider "poor", these are viewed as luxury items.

Don't forget to add in some cases, morbidly obese from overeating.....

Yep, and the ability to buy a carton of cigarettes every week.

(01-21-2010 09:35 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(01-20-2010 02:22 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-19-2010 09:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Fiscal conservatism, and tolerate moderation on the social issues.

If you go with fiscal conservatism, you are going to have to tolerate moderation on social issues because when all we have left are the rich and the poor. If they don't offer something to the poor, they will be out on their rears really fast(assuming they don't fix the election-which is a definate possibility).

With very few exceptions, low taxes and limited spending will always result in a smaller 'poor' class compared to a system of high taxes and high spending.

Caveat: Countries that practice Crony Capitalism and/or corruption will obviously not fit this model, and should not be considered free market in any version of the term.

Agree. Except, Cronyism seems inevitably to lead to high taxes and large spending. I think it fits right in w/ your original assertion.

(01-21-2010 09:35 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(01-20-2010 02:22 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-19-2010 09:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Fiscal conservatism, and tolerate moderation on the social issues.

If you go with fiscal conservatism, you are going to have to tolerate moderation on social issues because when all we have left are the rich and the poor. If they don't offer something to the poor, they will be out on their rears really fast(assuming they don't fix the election-which is a definate possibility).

With very few exceptions, low taxes and limited spending will always result in a smaller 'poor' class compared to a system of high taxes and high spending.
Caveat: Countries that practice Crony Capitalism and/or corruption will obviously not fit this model, and should not be considered free market in any version of the term. So any references to Latin American countries, Russia, the former Soviet '-stans', etc, do not apply. The authoritarian arm of government is alive and in control in many of these countries, despite their so-called "capitalist" statuses.

I think you can safely include Obamastan in that latter category. And Shrub certainly paved the way.