• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

No, but I would force any couple that creates a child together to be married and spend the next 18 years and 9 months (minimum) together to raise that child.

This is why I think social conservatism is an oxymoron - it is essentially an appeal to a big and intrusive government to instill a certain brand of morality on everyone else through the use of force.
 
Except, since it won't be implemented, it will never be able to get those results you desire.

The best thing we can do to reduce children out of wedlock is educate teenagers on the true costs of having children when they are not financially and/or emotionally/mentally ready for them and all the things that can be done to prevent unwanted pregnancies. This should be a major responsibility of parents, but it should also be covered, from an academic standpoint, in school. Make teenagers really see what it takes to be a parent and what happens to parents who aren't prepared and are barely making it, if at all.

You and I both know that isn't going to make a damn bit of difference. So at least in the system I suggest there is a PUNISHMENT for committing the crime that we both know isn't going to be stopped before it's committed.

This is why I think social conservatism is an oxymoron - it is essentially an appeal to a big and intrusive government to instill a certain brand of morality on everyone else through the use of force.

True Social Conservatism is a part of Authoritarianism, not a Libertarian view of things. Always has been and always will be. I'm an avowed Authoritarian. Never denied it.
 
That's fine. The intent is not to force them to get married. The intent is to reduce the occurance of pre-marital sex to ensure that they don't end up in that situation.

This isn't going to reduce pre-marital sex either. Even today, a child is a very big commitment, and adding to this commitment won't do much. Accidents are accidents for a reason.
 
This isn't going to reduce pre-marital sex either. Even today, a child is a very big commitment, and adding to this commitment won't do much. Accidents are accidents for a reason.

Children are not ACCIDENTS. Children are what can happen when two individuals make a choice to engage in a certain act. Even if those individuals are on birth control, using condoms, etc... I have a friend who just had her second child about 4 months ago; and almost 10 years after having her tubes tied. When FATE makes a decision, there are no ACCIDENTS.
 
You and I both know that isn't going to make a damn bit of difference. So at least in the system I suggest there is a PUNISHMENT for committing the crime that we both know isn't going to be stopped before it's committed.

But if you have no hope of what you are suggesting getting through, which you have pretty much none, then your suggestion is not going to do any good either.

And I must say that your assertion that it won't do any difference is wrong. I know that education and open talks are the absolute best way to cut down on teenage pregnancies, if not all unwanted pregnancies. My parents have six children, all are now adults. No teenage pregnancies. And we grew up in poverty. Odds were pretty good at least one of us should have been a teenage mother or father, but it didn't happen because there was almost always someone there enforcing the facts about what unprotected sex can lead to and exactly what unwanted pregnancies can do to your life.
 
That's the same group that still think that GWB was an effective and good President. Hardly what I would call a significant number
 
Sorry Vance but your statement is factually incorrect. Teaparty supported and elected govs attacked public workers viciously...they blamed their state woes on the workers and at the same time stripping their workers they either did or attempted to give tax cuts to the rich and corporations....NONE has created any jobs yet in any of those states.
The first thing House elected teaparty supported reps did was attack social security and medicare...ryan put together a teaparty backed plan that was a candystore for the rich and corporations at everyone elses expense....Since the election in Nov the teaparty has lost tons of their support...and they will lose more. Just look at this primary...everyone of their far right n utter candidates has been soundly REJECTED by moderate republicans and independents....
It's only Monday and we may have a winner for the most idiotic post of the week.

Conservatives (i.e. Tea Party folks) came out in droves last November and beat down the democrats like they were stray dogs. This happened all over the Country. Senators, House reps, governors, entire statehouses were converted into republican majorities. It is pathetic and childishly dishonest to sit here now and claim the Tea Party didn't have any influence over the elections. Keep telling yourself that lie if it makes you feel better about being a widely disliked progressive. November of 2012 will be no different, liberalism has been soundly rejected by the voters.
 
True Social Conservatism is a part of Authoritarianism, not a Libertarian view of things. Always has been and always will be. I'm an avowed Authoritarian. Never denied it.

Conservatism has nothing to do with limited government. Thanks for being honest.
 
This is why I think social conservatism is an oxymoron - it is essentially an appeal to a big and intrusive government to instill a certain brand of morality on everyone else through the use of force.

I'll give a better example of an oxymoron, emphasis on moron.

People who say they are fiscal conservatives and socially liberal. The very second a person approves using taxpayers monies to advance socially liberal programs or causes, they are no longer a fiscal conservative.....period.
 
Conservatism has nothing to do with limited government. Thanks for being honest.

BS. I would have agreed with you had you said "republicans have nothing to do with limited government". A true conservative absolutely endorses the notion we should have the smallest, least intrusive government.
 
BS. I would have agreed with you had you said "republicans have nothing to do with limited government". A true conservative absolutely endorses the notion we should have the smallest, least intrusive government.

Sure, if you are the one making definitions on what is "conservative". "Well no true Scottsman..."
 
I'll give a better example of an oxymoron, emphasis on moron.

People who say they are fiscal conservatives and socially liberal. The very second a person approves using taxpayers monies to advance socially liberal programs or causes, they are no longer a fiscal conservative.....period.
When people use terms like 'fiscal conservative' and 'social liberal', they're separating social issues from fiscal issues. In other words, when people refer to themselves as 'socially liberal' they're specifically NOT referring to tax payers' money.
 
BS. I would have agreed with you had you said "republicans have nothing to do with limited government". A true conservative absolutely endorses the notion we should have the smallest, least intrusive government.

Social conservatives appeal to an authoritative government. Are social conservatives not real conservatives?
 
Spending, spending, spending....borrowing...borrowing....borrowing...credit...credit...credit.... Example: Our own government.

Being conservative with money is creating a budget and staying in that budget.

Oh, you mean like Bush and his Conservative Congress that turned a surplus into a deficit. Gotcha!
 
BS. I would have agreed with you had you said "republicans have nothing to do with limited government". A true conservative absolutely endorses the notion we should have the smallest, least intrusive government.

Except with many Republicans when it comes to Gays, Lesbians and Muslims right?
 
That is a landslide minority

The teaparty has had no impact in changing americans beliefs...the numbers remain the same.

he bad economy, a change in presidents, bailouts, health care, the Tea Party and now another presidential cycle, you name it. Still, the basic fiscal and social ideologies of U.S. voters remain largely unchanged.


27% Say They
Do you really mean fiscally responsible instead of fiscally conservative? Because you can be fiscally responsible and fiscally liberal at the same time and you can be fiscally conservative and fiscally irresponsible at the same time, like cutting taxes for the rich in a deficit.

I believe in fiscal responsibility, as in balancing the budget, and I think more than 27% of people do too, just not everybody believes in tax cuts and a flat tax.
 
That's kinda funny....they've had less than a year, and yet President Obama has had nearly three.....blah blah blah. Anyways, I think the tea party is little more than a bunch of rednecks and libertarians, or redneck libertarians...but the truth is, liberal democrats have done **** else more than the rednecks. ****, they spent the first two years wrapped around passing unconstitutional legislation....how bright is that?

I agree with everything you said mac :) were on the same page basically
 
Sure, if you are the one making definitions on what is "conservative". "Well no true Scottsman..."

Any reasonable definition of "conservative" would support my comment.
 
When people use terms like 'fiscal conservative' and 'social liberal', they're separating social issues from fiscal issues. In other words, when people refer to themselves as 'socially liberal' they're specifically NOT referring to tax payers' money.

There was a reason why I used the words "taxpayer monies to advance socially liberal programs or causes". Most liberal social issues involve the use of taxpayer monies.
 
Social conservatives appeal to an authoritative government. Are social conservatives not real conservatives?

Social conservatives are liberals with a sliver of fiscal conservative in them.
 
Back
Top Bottom