Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4121314
Results 131 to 138 of 138

Thread: 27% Say They’re Conservative On Both Fiscal and Social Issues

  1. #131
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    02-23-12 @ 04:16 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    791

    Re: 27% Say They’re Conservative On Both Fiscal and Social Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Incorrect. Social Conservatism is a set of beliefs regarding morals, traditions, and societal standards. How one wishes to push, encourage, impliment, or adopt those morals, traditions, and standards is more based off their view of how the government should function in relation to the individual and society than it is about the social conservative views.

    Encourage with the use of big government which is antithetical to limited government.

    "Social Conservatism" as a monolithic entity rather than an actual political ideology would fit what you're saying, as by and large it is in favor of enforce thos socially conservative views onto people through government involvement.

    "social conservatism" as an ideologicla subset of the larger ideology "conservatism" does not require, nor necessarily automatically lend itself, to implimenting those things upon people through the government.
    Thank you for being honest and accepting the fact that a few social conservatives who don't wish to use the government to "encourage" their morality onto others is a subset of the much large group of social conservatives who do.

  2. #132
    Educator
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    ATL
    Last Seen
    07-07-12 @ 09:00 PM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,172

    Re: 27% Say They’re Conservative On Both Fiscal and Social Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    That's actually incorrect.

    SOME social conservatives appeal to an authoritative government.

    The issue is people wrongfully attempt to take an ideology that has multiple segments and suggest that a singular segment is the true one.

    You have Social Conservatism, focusing on traditions, morals, and societal lifestyle.

    You have Governmental Conservatism, focusing on size and scope of government and the amount of intrusion and power it should have on peoples lives.

    You have Fiscal Conservatism, focusing on the costs of operating government and the amount government involves itself in your own finances.

    You have Militaristic Conservatism, focusing on the size/scope/strength of our military, our intelligence capabilities, our status and regard within the world, etc.

    Those are in my mind your four largest branches from the baseline of "conservatism". Someone who is extremely socially conservative but who is rather weak regarding Governmental conservatism is likely to trend more authoritarian, as they do not have the conservative aversion to government intervention so intead us the government to enforce those traditions, morals, lifestyle choices, etc.

    On the flip side, one could be a social and governmental conservative, and feel that those traditions or morals should be instilled by preventing the use of government to enforce things onto people that are contrary to those traditions or morals, or that they should be instilled from a more personal level with the government staying hands off save for in places its absolutely necessary.

    Depending on how strong or weak they are in any particular portion of conservatism can tip the scale as to what's acceptable and what's not.

    Its possible to be socially conservative and not be authoratarian. Its even possible to be socially conservative and libertarian. The "authoritarian/libertarian" deliniation comes much more out of their place on the governmental scale rather than social.

    There's not only one type of social conservative, and attempting to lump all conservatives as those who feel the government should forcefully involve itself into how people live their lives is a grossly innacurate and ignorant of reality statement.
    That is, hands down, the best post I have read during my limited time at this forum.
    I love the smell of burning moonbat in the morning.

  3. #133
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,967

    Re: 27% Say They’re Conservative On Both Fiscal and Social Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by Antiderivative View Post
    Encourage with the use of big government which is antithetical to limited government.
    Incorrect.

    It can be encouraged through a community level without government. It can be encouraged through an individual level, parent to child. It can even be encouraged, within consistant conservative principle, by the government through disallowing individuals to utilize the government to force individuals to act or go against those traditions/norms/standards/etc.

    For example, lets say in a hypothetical there was a standard of social conservatism that you should always wear a suit. It would be going against a more broad, balanced conservative ideology to use the government to then FORCE people to always wear a suit. However, it would be in line with that balanced approach to use the government to encourage people to potentially wear a suit by fighting against an attempt from someone else to use the government ot force people to wear Shorts and a T-Shirt every Saturday.

    Thank you for being honest and accepting the fact that a few social conservatives who don't wish to use the government to "encourage" their morality onto others is a subset of the much large group of social conservatives who do.
    And you want to suggest I'm lying? You're flat out, plain as day, distorting my words.

    I stated that "social conservatism" is an ideological subset of the larger ideology of "Conservatism"....NOT that, how you were so able to twist things in your head to read it the way you did I can not understand, that social conservatism is a subset of social conservatism. That's retarded.

    Not only did I CLEARLY state it was a subset of "CONSERVATISM", the over arching all encompassing ideology but I also more specifically delved into my meaning in this very thread in post #110. Your dishonesty in regards to this debate is so disgustingly apparent at this point its disheartening. You, bold faced and unapologetic, decided to take my quote and in the very next breath absolutely and completely distort it to say something that's not even remotely close reality.

  4. #134
    Educator
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    ATL
    Last Seen
    07-07-12 @ 09:00 PM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,172

    Re: 27% Say They’re Conservative On Both Fiscal and Social Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    No, the GOP liked the Big Tent nature of the party. Limbaugh used to brag about it. Conservatives (of whom there are very few actual ones left) reveled in it because of the competition for ideas and platform it brought.
    I agree and disagree. Yes, many republicans liked the notion of a big tent. No, that notion wasn't based on the desire to have liberal principles debated and incorporated into the party's platform.

    If I can speak for Rush Limbaugh. He has lusted over a Big Tent that is created by a bedrock conservative expressing bedrock conservative principles.
    I love the smell of burning moonbat in the morning.

  5. #135
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    02-23-12 @ 04:16 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    791

    Re: 27% Say They’re Conservative On Both Fiscal and Social Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Incorrect.

    It can be encouraged through a community level without government. It can be encouraged through an individual level, parent to child. It can even be encouraged, within consistant conservative principle, by the government through disallowing individuals to utilize the government to force individuals to act or go against those traditions/norms/standards/etc.

    For example, lets say in a hypothetical there was a standard of social conservatism that you should always wear a suit. It would be going against a more broad, balanced conservative ideology to use the government to then FORCE people to always wear a suit. However, it would be in line with that balanced approach to use the government to encourage people to potentially wear a suit by fighting against an attempt from someone else to use the government ot force people to wear Shorts and a T-Shirt every Saturday.
    I am not talking about hypotheticals, I am talking about how socials conservatives actually appeal to the federal government to enforce their brand of morality on the rest of the society. Certainly, your hypotheticals and specific examples stand up, but I thought we were talking about reality.

    And you want to suggest I'm lying? You're flat out, plain as day, distorting my words.

    I stated that "social conservatism" is an ideological subset of the larger ideology of "Conservatism"....NOT that, how you were so able to twist things in your head to read it the way you did I can not understand, that social conservatism is a subset of social conservatism. That's retarded.

    Not only did I CLEARLY state it was a subset of "CONSERVATISM", the over arching all encompassing ideology but I also more specifically delved into my meaning in this very thread in post #110. Your dishonesty in regards to this debate is so disgustingly apparent at this point its disheartening. You, bold faced and unapologetic, decided to take my quote and in the very next breath absolutely and completely distort it to say something that's not even remotely close reality.
    I actually thought you were becoming honest, not lying. I am sorry if I misinterpreted your words. I thought you claimed that Social Conservatism is in favor of enforcing socially conservative views onto people through government involvement and that social conservatism was a smaller subset of conservatism. I could have swore that you said this, but perhaps I was wrong.

    I wasn't distorting your words. I misunderstood you. However, you take a honest misunderstanding and skew into lies and distortion in order to support more lies and distortions. Seriously, this conversation is becoming a joke.
    Last edited by Antiderivative; 10-25-11 at 06:56 PM.

  6. #136
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,967

    Re: 27% Say They’re Conservative On Both Fiscal and Social Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by conservativeguy View Post
    I agree and disagree. Yes, many republicans liked the notion of a big tent. No, that notion wasn't based on the desire to have liberal principles debated and incorporated into the party's platform.

    If I can speak for Rush Limbaugh. He has lusted over a Big Tent that is created by a bedrock conservative expressing bedrock conservative principles.
    You can't have a big tent created by bedrock consrevatives expressing bedrock consrevative princpiles because the very nature of being a bedrock conservative indicates that one is of a particular type of conservative, and thus the tent is actually not big.

    Without the "Big Tent" you can not have the Religious Right as part of the GOP. You can not have the Neocons as a part of the GOP. You can not have Libertarians as a part of the GOP. You will be hard pressed to have Moderate Conservatives as part of the GOP. You will have issues getting even generalized conservatives who fluxurate with regards to their support for the various pillars of the ideology but not to such a degree to clearly fall within another of the categories. You're essentially limiting yourself almost singularly to paleoconservatives, which in and of itself even has some fluxurations.

    Hell, your big tent that you suggest Rush lusts over wouldn't even be able to include Rush since there's been a significant portions of times when Rush has full on split with "bedrock conservative principles". It also wouldn't be able to include Ronald Reagan.

    What the GOP "Big Tent" can't do is take in people to positions of prominence, aka elected positions, who are conservative on a single issue and that's it. IE individuals who are 90% solidly liberal...not just moderately conservative, but solidly middle left to left...but on one or two issues are very right. Joe Lieberman would be an example perhaps. However, individuals who are significantly conservative in their lean primarily, even if moderate, are ones that need to be included under the big tent if any kind of significant, lasting, substantial electoral success is desired in a fashion that isn't 4 years at a time.

  7. #137
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,967

    Re: 27% Say They’re Conservative On Both Fiscal and Social Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by Antiderivative View Post
    I am not talking about hypotheticals, I am talking about how socials conservatives actually appeal to the federal government to enforce their brand of morality on the rest of the society. Certainly, your hypotheticals and specific examples stand up, but I thought we were talking about reality.
    We are talking about an ideology, thus essentially political philosophy. You suggested "encourage" MUST be through government intervention. I simply corrected your mistake to highlight that encourage under social conservatism can be done through individual and community methods, and it can be done through governmental methods that do not result in an increase in government interference in peoples lives but rather the opposite.

    I actually thought you were becoming honest, not lying. I am sorry if I misinterpreted your words. I thought you claimed that Social Conservatism is in favor of enforcing socially conservative views onto people through government involvement. I could have swore that you said this, but perhaps I was wrong.
    I said Social Conservatism, specifically as a singular entity in the way you later described in this thread which was more of a political group rather than a political ideology...made up of individuals who are socially conservative but are not governmentally conservative but rather governmentally liberal, IE they believe that the government is best used as a tool to improve society...are by and large a group that uses the government to enforce their socially conservative views.

    However, that is an entirely different thing to social conservatism, the political ideology that is a subset of the larger ideology of "Conservatism" as a whole, which in no way shape or form requires nor suggests nor directly supports such action.

    I wasn't distorting your words. I misunderstood you. However, you take a misundersanding and skew into lies and distortion.
    If that's the case, so be it. I honestly can't possibly fathom how you could've took from what I stated what you presented. It was two sentences, only one of which talked about a "subset" and in doing so specifically said a subset of CONSERVATISM not social conservatism, yet somehow you read that I was saying social conservatism is a subset of social conservatism which in and of itself doesn't even make senes.

  8. #138
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    02-23-12 @ 04:16 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    791

    Re: 27% Say They’re Conservative On Both Fiscal and Social Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    We are talking about an ideology, thus essentially political philosophy. You suggested "encourage" MUST be through government intervention. I simply corrected your mistake to highlight that encourage under social conservatism can be done through individual and community methods, and it can be done through governmental methods that do not result in an increase in government interference in peoples lives but rather the opposite.
    I never suggested such a thing. Your lies are becoming more apparent. In fact, I agreed with you that social conservatives can encourage their morality through other means than government, but you are simply turning a blind eye that many use the government to "encourage" their particular brand of morality.

    Certainly using means other than government is feasible, but social conservatives often appeal to the government to enforce their brand of morality onto society. Anyone who cannot acknowledge this does not live in reality.

    I said Social Conservatism, specifically as a singular entity in the way you later described in this thread which was more of a political group rather than a political ideology...made up of individuals who are socially conservative but are not governmentally conservative but rather governmentally liberal, IE they believe that the government is best used as a tool to improve society...are by and large a group that uses the government to enforce their socially conservative views.

    However, that is an entirely different thing to social conservatism, the political ideology that is a subset of the larger ideology of "Conservatism" as a whole, which in no way shape or form requires nor suggests nor directly supports such action.
    I am not going to debate whether social conservatism is a political ideology or a group. This is simply a red herring.

    Again, it seems like you agree with me, but perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Social conservatives who use big government to instill their brand of morality onto society is antithetical to limited government conservatism. Again, I am probably misunderstanding and you believe otherwise.

    If that's the case, so be it. I honestly can't possibly fathom how you could've took from what I stated what you presented. It was two sentences, only one of which talked about a "subset" and in doing so specifically said a subset of CONSERVATISM not social conservatism, yet somehow you read that I was saying social conservatism is a subset of social conservatism which in and of itself doesn't even make senes.
    I accidentally used the modifier "social" one to many times and you are throwing a fit over it. Again, it was an honest mistake. If you cannot fathom it, then so be it.
    Last edited by Antiderivative; 10-25-11 at 07:16 PM.

Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4121314

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •